Poor cooperation as grounds for dismissal? Yes, but without redeployment, the door remains closed.

As an employer, can you dismiss an employee who is good at their job but brings the atmosphere in every team down to below zero? The subdistrict court in The Hague has given a clear and nuanced answer to this question: yes, a lack of ability to work with others can lead to dysfunction. But anyone who forgets the obligation to redeploy will be in for a nasty legal surprise.

This case concerns a project manager who has been employed since 2017. Everyone agrees on her professional qualities: she works hard, delivers results, and is even studying civil engineering on her own initiative. The problem lies in her ability to cooperate. Since 2018, the same theme has kept cropping up in meeting reports: she has difficulty interacting with colleagues, in teams, and with managers. It is not her professional skills, but her soft skills that are the stumbling block. Rijnland does not leave it at one conversation. The employee is placed in different teams, given different managers, and offered support, coaching, and mediation. Nevertheless, cooperation remains difficult and she is ultimately suspended.

Rijnland then requests termination of the employment contract, primarily due to a disrupted working relationship and, alternatively, due to poor performance. The subdistrict court judge dismissed the first ground: there is tension, but not such a disrupted relationship that it alone warrants termination. More interesting is what the judge said about poor performance. He emphasized that cooperation is not a nice bonus in a position as project leader, but an integral part of the job. An employee must therefore not only be good at their job; they must also be able to function in a team. Because the lack of ability to cooperate has been consistently identified, supported, and discussed for years, the subdistrict court judge concludes that the d-ground is valid.

As an employer, you would think that this settles the matter. But that is where the WWZ comes into play. Article 7:669 of the Dutch Civil Code requires more than just reasonable grounds: the employer must also demonstrate that redeployment within a reasonable period of time is not possible or reasonable. This is not a formality, but an independent test. In this case, this is precisely Rijnland's Achilles heel.

The employee does not necessarily want to leave; she is committed to keeping her job and has made a concrete proposal through her representative. She is willing to work partly from home and partly in another department, does not want to be isolated from her colleagues, and is open to guidance from an external coach to address the collaboration issues. In other words: not “I'm not to blame for anything,” but “I see that there is an issue and I want to work on it, as long as I can stay.”

The employer's response is crystal clear but disastrous: termination of employment is essential for her, and if the employee is committed to keeping her job, there is actually no basis for a settlement. The subdistrict court interprets this as Rijnland having definitively decided on termination and no longer seriously considering solutions within the organization. The transfers were not aimed at finding a position in which the problem would no longer arise and were overshadowed by the refusal to investigate the employee's concrete proposal. This conflicts with the intention of the legislator: employers are expected to actively investigate whether job retention—whether or not in an adapted form—is possible. The fact that the employee wants to stay should not be held against her; that is precisely what the WWZ aims to protect.

The outcome is tough for the employer. The subdistrict court acknowledges that there is poor performance, but finds that redeployment in a modified form is reasonable and that Rijnland has not made sufficient efforts in this regard. The request for termination is therefore rejected. In fact, Rijnland is ordered to allow the employee to return to work from September 1, 2025, broadly in line with its own proposal, on pain of a penalty of € 500 per day. 

The message is clear: anyone who focuses solely on termination runs the risk of reinstatement with a penalty.

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

You can read the ruling here.