No reason for doubt: unequivocal termination

In a recent post, we talked about “the unambiguous termination of the employment contract” by the employee and that as an employer you have to be very careful with this. In this ruling, the subdistrict court held that there was indeed notice of termination by the employee. Why now? 

The employee sent an e-mail to the employer with the subject “termination of employment”. In this e-mail she indicated that she wanted to terminate the employment contract. In the e-mail she mentions several reasons which she had also previously discussed with employer. In the e-mail she also clearly states her notice period. After this e-mail, employee and employer discussed the situation with each other and employee did not reverse the termination.

A few days later, employee found out that things were going to change for the better in the organization at employer, so employee decided to revoke her notice. In justification of the withdrawal, she indicated that the employer had never confirmed the notice in writing and that with the e-mail she had only meant to want to discuss a number of matters, but not that she actually wanted to leave.

The subdistrict court is clear: the employee unequivocally terminated the employment contract. Employer could not have concluded from the e-mail that employee only wanted to enter into the conversation, partly because she had even named the notice period and all kinds of reasons why she wanted to leave. Employer was already aware of these reasons, so it could logically assume that employee actually wanted to terminate the employment contract.

The moral of these stories? If an employee cancels the employment contract in anger or on a whim, then the employer should consider whether the cancellation is truly genuine, but if the employee cancels in a clear well-reasoned email, then the employer may hold the employee to that cancellation.

If you have any questions, please contact Dennis Oud, Tessa Sipkema or Elke Hofman. 

Read the ruling here: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2024:4254

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)