Summary Dismissal

In three different judgments, the Danish Western High Court considers the justification of summary dismissals.

By judgment of 4 July 2013, the High Court established that the summary dismissal of a legal secretary was unfair. However, the majority of the High Court found that a dismissal of the secretary was reasonably justified by her circumstances, and as such she was unsuccessful in her claim for compensation under Section 2b of the Danish Salaried Employees Act.

The secretary had been summarily dismissed due to serious mistakes on her part in connection with carrying out her work. The secretary had, inter alia, provided a client with wrong information and had omitted to inform the attorney thereof.

The High Court attached importance to the facts that the secretary had 35 years of seniority, that she had not previously been reprimanded or received warnings and that the mistakes must have been caused by the secretary's heavier workload after one of her colleagues had been dismissed.

By judgment of 20 June 2013, the High Court established that the summary dismissal of an employee was fair. The employee had spent the weekend on renovating his bathroom and consequently felt too exhausted to go to work. The employee tried to contact his employer 30 minutes prior to the time at which he was to report for work, but did not reach his employer until 2 ½ hours after the commencement of the working hours. The employee had not pre-viously received any warnings.

The High Court attached importance to the facts that the employee had not been granted a day off, that it was common knowledge at the company that an employee's unlawful absence from work was considered a resignation at his own request and that the employee could not have reasonably expected that the absence would be tolerated or would only result in a warning.

Finally, by judgment of 5 September 2013, the High Court established that the summary dismissal of an employee was fair. On the same day as having been dismissed, the employee ordered two mobile phones, deleted 80 GB from the employer's database and booked a 16-day seminar at the employer's expense. In connection with the dismissal on the 29th of the month, the employee had been informed that he could choose to leave the office immediately or stay in the office for the rest of the day. In any circumstances, the employee would formally be re-leased from duties on the 31st of the month.

The High Court attached importance to the facts that the employee - who held a superior position in the company - must have known that after the dismissal and release from duties he was not in a position to carry out any further actions for the company, unless he was specifically requested thereto, that the employee had deleted a large amount of data as well as had attempted to gain unlimited access to the employer's computer systems and that the employee had ordered two mobile phones to his private address for personal gain.    

The judgments contribute elements which may be included in the assessment of whether or not a summary dismissal will be deemed fair. For instance, it appears from the judgments that an employee's long seniority and an employer's lack of organisation of the work may be elements to support that an employee's serious mistakes do not justify a summary dismissal. Moreover, importance may be attached to an employee's reasonable expectation or lack thereof - an expectation which may be influenced by the employer's policies and practice within a specific area.

Latest news on Employment and Labour Law

Employment and Labour Law