A technology employer recently thought they had built an airtight dismissal file against an employee, but hit a brick wall at both the district court and the court of appeal. The judge completely and resolutely rejected all claims because the company had simply ignored the statutory training obligation. This painful defeat shows exactly how a one-sided, hasty dismissal route quickly turns against you when the basic facts do not add up.

Why do you lose control when stacking multiple dismissal grounds?

As soon as you, as a manager, lose connection with your employee, the temptation grows to immediately choose the formal route. You silently build a file behind your desk and suddenly present a unilateral termination agreement. If the employee refuses to agree to this offer, the situation inevitably rolls towards a fierce escalation. In the case of this technology company, management successively put forward three different arguments for dismissal. They cited underperformance, a strained working relationship, and the so-called catch-all ground. This remarkably broad attack immediately reveals that internal control on the shop floor had disappeared much earlier. You secretly hope that a judge will cut the complex knot that you did not dare to unravel yourself. That always forms a shaky foundation for a dismissal file. By attacking on literally all fronts at the same time, the necessary nuance disappears entirely. You miss the opportunity to tackle the actual performance problem at its source. A magistrate judges solely based on the hard, demonstrable facts from the law. The frustrations of an overburdened manager simply play no role in the courtroom. You should carefully consider whether a business conflict is worth the legal risk.

Is the training obligation just an administrative checkbox for the court?

Article 7:611a of the Dutch Civil Code obliges you as an employer to offer training that is necessary for the proper performance of the current role. Many organizations incorrectly treat this requirement as an administrative emergency measure. They only offer an employee a course when their performance is already heavily debated. Judges see through this transparent tactic flawlessly. Developing your staff simply requires an ongoing, honest dialogue about the skills the future demands. If you fail to discuss which retraining is essential with your employee in time, it is impossible to unilaterally place that accumulated backlog on the other person later. The court assesses extremely critically whether you have actually and seriously contributed to the employability of your people. Hastily scheduling a mandatory course afterwards simply does not count in that strict assessment.

What does this structural duty mean for your case file?

The crucial point remains that training is never a fleeting formality that you pull out of the closet when a dismissal is imminent. It constitutes an active, structural duty. If you cannot prove during the hearing that you have invested substantially in the growth of your staff, you immediately start with a significant disadvantage in court. This lack of effort significantly undermines your negotiating position, even before the trial has truly begun.

How does mediation offer a workable way out of clashing interests?

A formal procedure takes months and puts a heavy strain on the daily focus of your company. After a bitter battle, the working relationship is almost always irreparably damaged. At the same time, after a rejected dismissal request, the employee simply remains on the payroll. This visibly puts pressure on the atmosphere in the department and hinders the productivity of the entire team. Mediation shifts the dynamic from cold legal demands to the actual, sometimes uncomfortable interests of both sides. In a private setting, you investigate without reservation where the real pain lies regarding the missing training and guidance. Yet, success is certainly not guaranteed in this process. If one party is purely out for retaliation or flatly refuses to acknowledge that management mistakes were made, this blocks any progress. However, if parting ways proves inevitable after the conversations, this trajectory often helps reach a respectful settlement agreement much faster than a war of attrition in court. It forces you to filter out the emotional frustrations that cloud the hard business reality. You can read more about why a company doctor might suggest this path here: the company doctor suggests mediation.

Pros and cons

Pros:

• Direct insight into the real pain points regarding performance instead of legal smokescreens

• Active focus on a workable agreement regarding the missing training obligation in your specific situation

• Significant cost savings because you avoid a risky and often hopeless trip to the district court.

• The outcome remains in your own hands rather than being left to a rigid judicial verdict.

Cons:

• Absolutely does not work if one party is purely out for the total capitulation of the other.
• Requires the genuine willingness to look critically at your own failures as an employer.
• The final solution is never fixed in advance, which demands considerable flexibility from you. Get in touch today to discuss openly whether your specific conflict is suitable for a constructive mediation process instead of an unpredictable lawsuit. Also, if you are struggling with a shareholder dispute, you can find helpful advice here.