Mistreatment "in the workplace"

's-Hertogenbosch court of appeal 30 January 2018

This case concerns an employee working for a car seat manufacturer. He works on a production line of chairs, whose quality he has to inspect. Every time after the employee approves a chair, the quality of the chair still has to be inspected by quality control staff from an external company. With some regularity, there are discussions between the internal and external quality controllers about approving/rejecting chairs, which then leads to tensions back and forth. On 4 March 2011 - late in the shift - a high-level incident arose between the employee and two external quality employees; an altercation with tension and commotion. Just before the end of the shift, another incident took place in the company premises between these employees. After his shift - at 02:00 - the employee walked outside. Outside the door of the workshop, in the company car park, he receives a headbutt from one of the two other employees and is punched. The employee reports sick after this and remains totally unfit for work for a long time. The two other employees are sentenced to community service by the court for assault.

The employee holds his employer, the car seat manufacturer, liable for the personal injury which he suffered as a result of the assault. The court rejects the employer's liability because it finds insufficient connection to the work. The employee appeals from this.

The court of appeal ruled that for a successful reliance on employer liability, the employee must prove that he suffered injury in the performance of his duties. The court held that this was the case because disagreements a few minutes before the end of the night shift arose, the employee ended his shift fairly soon after, and he was assaulted immediately outside the door of the workplace.

The next question is whether the employer has fulfilled its duty of care. The Court of Appeal also took into account Section 3, paragraph 2 of the Working Conditions Act: "The employer shall (...) pursue a policy aimed at preventing and (...) limiting psychosocial workload". Section 1 (3) of the Working Conditions Act defines psychosocial workload as: "the factors of direct or indirect discrimination, including sexual harassment, aggression and violence, bullying and work pressure, in the employment situation that cause stress."

The court noted that at the car seat manufacturer, there were regular discussions and tensions between the internal and external quality controllers in connection with approval of seats. However, little, if any, attention was paid at managerial level to reducing those tensions. Any policy or measures to this effect were lacking. Furthermore, the court does not consider it proven that the employer acted adequately after the first incident to normalise relations between the employees concerned. For instance, it has not been established that the employee in question was actually assigned another workplace in the production line after the first incident, as claimed by the employer. The court concluded that the employer did not pay sufficient attention to maintaining a safe working environment. The employer is therefore liable for the personal injury suffered by the employee as a result of the assault. The court orders the employer to pay an advance on the employee's damages of over Eur 13,000.

Tip: As an employer, implement an active policy to prevent sexual harassment, aggression, violence and bullying!