The claimant had been employed by Venture Group B.V. as a Senior Legal Counsel since 1 January 2024, under a fixed-term employment contract for 12 months. The letter of offer stated that, subject to satisfactory performance and positive business prospects, the contract would be converted to a permanent position. On 4 September 2024, a progress meeting took place in which the director expressed a positive attitude towards an extension but also voiced doubts about the claimant’s performance. A final decision was to be made in early October. The claimant secretly recorded this progress meeting. On 28 October 2024, the claimant was informed that his contract would not be extended. On 14 November 2024, the end of the employment relationship as of 1 January 2025, was formally announced to the claimant. On 11 January 2025, the claimant sent an email to two HR employees of Venture Group, stating, among other things, that he would initiate legal proceedings if the statutory transition compensation was not paid, and that he would file a complaint with the Human Rights Board regarding possible unlawful indirect age discrimination. The claimant filed a petition with the subdistrict court, seeking fair compensation for Venture Group’s failure to honor the promise of extension.
The claimant argued that Venture Group had made him an offer to extend his contract, which he had accepted. Venture Group disputed that any such promise had been made.
The court assessed whether a binding promise existed based on the doctrine of reasonable reliance (wilsvertrouwensleer)(Articles 3:33 and 3:35 of the Dutch Civil Code). In other words: how could the claimant reasonably interpret the director’s words during and after the progress meeting? The court found that, based on the 4 September 2024 meeting and its minutes, the claimant could reasonably interpret the director’s statements as a promise to extend the employment. Venture Group should have been clear if an extension was not certain. By failing to honor the promise, Venture Group acted in a seriously culpable manner.
The court considered it likely that, had the promise been fulfilled, the contract would only have been extended by two months, given the doubts about the claimant’s performance. The compensation was therefore based on the lost income for this period, reduced by the unemployment benefits received. The compensation was moderated to €2,174.10 gross (50% of the calculated amount), partly because Venture Group’s conduct did not fall into the most serious category of culpability and because the claimant’s own conduct was not entirely proper (secretly recording meetings, sending a threatening email to HR).
Venture Group was ordered to pay the claimant €2,174.10 gross, plus statutory interest, part of the extrajudicial collection costs (€326.12), and legal costs (€1,681.00).