1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Unreasonable Termination - Belgian Supreme Court Confirms: No Employee Fault Required

Unreasonable Termination - Belgian Supreme Court Confirms: No Employee Fault Required

Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.05.18

Since April 2014, both blue collar and white collar employees in Belgium can claim legally fixed damages (3 to 17 weeks’ salary) for ‘obviously unreasonable termination’ of their employment contract (Collective Bargaining Agreement n° 109). Before that agreement, only blue collar employees could claim fixed damages for ‘unreasonable termination’ (article 63 of the Employment Agreements Act).

Since CBA n° 109 is recent legislation, case law is still up for interpretation. For the first time since CBA n° 109 took effect, the Belgian Supreme Court ruled about the interpretation of the concept of unreasonable termination (even if the case concerns the old, abolished, article 63, which however remains relevant since the principles at stake under CBA n° 109 remain essentially the same).

The Supreme Court confirmed its existing case law and ruled that the legal concept of unreasonable termination does not require a fault by the employee. In the case at issue, it was proven that the employee was terminated for reasons related to issues communicating with colleagues (the employee was not able to communicate in a positive and amicable way (cf. oral and written reports which became more and more contentious)) and the fact that the employee was suffering from this situation. While the Brussels Labor Court ruled that the termination was unreasonable since it was not demonstrated that the communication difficulties and the suffering at work could be attributed to the employee, the Supreme Court decided that the termination was not unreasonable.

Concretely, in daily HR practice, bear in mind that a specific fault, professional shortcoming, or concrete inappropriate behavior is not required to proceed with a termination based on personal reasons. Not fitting in with the team and not being able to decently work with colleagues, can justify a termination. Of course, it is of utmost importance that you are able to demonstrate the reasons invoked. Copies of evaluation reports and complaints from colleagues or clients should be kept carefully in the employee’s file.

Our Brussels Labor & Employment practice is available to advise on termination strategy and implementation, as well as on any other aspect of individual and collective labor law in general.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.08.26

CAS Board Publishes Final Rule Rescinding CAS 404, 408, 409, and 4117

As part of its ongoing effort to conform the Cost Accounting Standards (“CAS”) to generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), the CAS Board published a final rule rescinding CAS 408 (Accounting for costs of compensated personal absence) and CAS 411 (Accounting for acquisition costs of material).  The CAS Board also rescinded CAS 404 (Capitalization of tangible assets) and CAS 409 (Depreciation of tangible capital assets) but retained certain requirements of CAS 404 and 409, which will be located in new paragraphs of CAS 405 (Accounting for unallowable costs).  Specifically, the CAS Board retained the requirements currently located at CAS 404-50(d)(1), CAS 409-50(e)(5), CAS 409-50(j)(1), and CAS 409-50(j)(4), which the CAS Board explained are necessary to protect the Government’s interests.  Otherwise, the CAS Board determined that the requirements of CAS 404, 408, 409, and 411 overlapped with GAAP such that GAAP “may be applied reasonably as a substitute for CAS to support contract cost and pricing.”...

View All Insights