Newsletter 2025 – 09
1 Office news
Save the date for February 24, 2025. Mploy, together with Salar, a social secretariat, a Rush Hour HR event focusing on alcohol and drugs in the workplace.
2 Jurisprudence – urgent reason – proportionality
Court of Cassation, September 22, 2025, S.24.0029.N
The judge may not take into account the proportionality between the dismissal and its consequences for the employee in his assessment of this urgent reason.
After the labor court upheld his claim for severance pay and foreclosure compensation, the commercial representative saw those claims dismissed by the labor court. That court ruled—in line with an earlier judgment of the Court of Cassation of June 6, 2016—that it did not have to consider the consequences of the dismissal when assessing the urgent reason.
The employee argued before the Court of Cassation that the judge may apply the principle of proportionality as an assessment factor/circumstance, in addition to other assessment factors. They may therefore assess whether the dismissal for urgent reasons and its consequences, including the immediate loss of employment without notice or compensation, are proportionate to the (severity of the) breach committed by the dismissed employee.
The employee referred to the established case law of the Court of Cassation, which states that the judge, when assessing the legality of a dismissal for urgent reasons, must consider all factors that can support that assessment. The judge must take into account all the circumstances of the case, meaning that they must be included in their assessment.
The Court of Cassation disagrees.
The relationship between the legal consequences of dismissal for urgent reasons and the serious breach of contract that makes any professional cooperation between the employer and the employee impossible is unrelated to the concept of urgent reasons in that statutory provision; the court's obligation to take into account the disproportion put forward by a party between the fault it committed and the consequences of dismissal for urgent reasons in its assessment of the lawfulness of the dismissal, and more specifically of the seriousness of the breach of contract and the immediate and definitive impossibility of professional cooperation, is based on an incorrect legal view.
Ludo Vermeulen, Partner lawyer
ludo.vermeulen@mploy.be
2 Judiciary – school principal must return to the classroom as punishment
Chamber of Appeal GVO/ 2024 / 15 / … / 29 January 2025
A school board in a privately funded education system initiated disciplinary proceedings against a principal after receiving a concerned letter from several teachers. These teachers flagged a whole range of behaviors the principal allegedly engaged in: intimidation, creating a climate of fear, inappropriate behavior, insulting and over-examining staff members, non-cooperative communication, creating a toxic atmosphere at the school, a lack of transparency in assignment allocation, a refusal to tolerate public participation, sowing discord, financial fraud, identity fraud, making unnecessary purchases with school resources, and jeopardizing the school's educational project.
Ultimately, the school board imposed the disciplinary penalty of "demotion." This means the individual is no longer the principal of the school and "reverts" to the position of teacher. Legally, this doesn't mean the individual can never become a principal again at their current or another school, but in practice, that chance is slim.
The director made timely use of the opportunity to appeal against the imposed disciplinary punishment.
From the laundry list of charges, the Appeals Chamber selected two disciplinary offences:
- setting up an extra-legal system of performance compensation behind the back of the school board;
- the diversion of operating resources from the school.
The Appeals Board found no doubt whatsoever about the first disciplinary offense – in which Colruyt vouchers apparently played a prominent role in the reimbursement system. The director admitted that he had not discussed the system with the school board. The Board considered that establishing such an extralegal reimbursement system constituted a deliberate failure to comply with the Legal Position Decree. The fact that this occurred behind the school board's back makes the offense more serious, according to the Board. The fact that the director had discussed the system with other management teams is irrelevant.
According to the Appeals Board, a demotion was entirely reasonable for this first disciplinary offense alone. The offense was such that the school board lost confidence in the staff member as principal, at least temporarily.
The Appeals Board then addressed the second disciplinary offense. The director allegedly purchased goods with school operating funds and had them delivered to his home. Apparently, the director argued that he later brought the goods to the school. He disputed that he had kept these goods for his own profit.
The Board of Appeal left open the question of whether the goods were actually brought to the school and was already troubled by the fact that the director had not dispelled any doubts in this regard. The Board stated the following on this point:
Anyone who has goods delivered to their home, obtained using school funds, without maintaining a sufficient system demonstrating that these goods are not being used personally, makes themselves particularly vulnerable. According to the Appeals Board, such operational procedures are the responsibility of the management. A director who fails to organize this to substantiate their own purchasing and delivery behavior cannot be surprised if doubts arise and critical questions are raised by the board of directors.
Even if the most minimal interpretation of that second disciplinary offence had been proven, in the view of the Appeals Board it still strengthened the proportionality of the sanction of demotion.
The Appeals Board therefore confirmed the disciplinary penalty imposed.
Hans Van Rompaey, Partner Attorney
hans.vanrompaey@mploy.be