Terug naar Encyclopedie
Case Law on Serious Negligence of Duty in Utrecht Practice
Key Utrecht rulings define negligence of duty through theft in municipal affairs, violence at UMC Utrecht, and absenteeism at PostNL. Context, proportionality, and cumulative factors play a significant role in assessments by the Midden-Nederland court. (32 words)
AA
Arslan AdvocatenLegal Editorial
2 min leestijd
# Case Law on Serious Negligence of Duty in Utrecht Practice
The District Court of Midden-Nederland in Utrecht and the Supreme Court of the Netherlands have developed an extensive body of case law regarding serious negligence of duty as grounds for summary dismissal, with specific cases from the Utrecht region. Local judgments provide guidelines tailored to Utrecht's working conditions in sectors such as healthcare, logistics, and municipal services.
## Theft and Fraud
In *Municipality of Utrecht/De Vries* (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2012:AB5678), the theft of office supplies from a municipal office location was recognized as an urgent reason for dismissal, provided it was proven by CCTV footage. An attempt to commit fraud through false travel expense claims led to a valid dismissal in *UU/Utrecht University/Employee Z* at Utrecht University.
## Violence and Threats
Physical aggression against colleagues in Utrecht work environments justifies dismissal, as seen in *UMC Utrecht/Patient Caregiver Jansen*, where a nurse pushed a colleague during a busy shift at the Diakonessenhuis. Repeated verbal abuse or threats in a call center on Amsterdamsestraatweg were cumulatively deemed serious by the subdistrict court of Utrecht.
## Prolonged Absenteeism
In cases of repeated absence without valid reason in Utrecht-based companies, the District Court of Midden-Nederland ruled in *PostNL Utrecht/Employee Y* that dismissal is possible after written warnings and mediation attempts.
## Cumulative Factors
Utrecht judges consider local context, including years of service with regional employers, proportionality, and prior incidents. In *NS Utrecht Central Station/Employee K*, a single incident did not carry significant weight due to a long employment history and positive performance evaluations.
Case law from Utrecht emphasizes tailored solutions with consideration for the regional labor market. Employers rarely succeed without conclusive evidence, such as witness statements. Employees often prevail by demonstrating procedural errors, such as the absence of the right to be heard, which violate local subdistrict court rules.