An employer suspects one of its employees to perform unfair competition during the exercise of its own duties.
The employer invites the worker to a meeting, without disclosing the purpose of the meeting, and suggests the employee to take the following choice: either he resigns or he is dismissed for serious cause. Under the pressure of the employer, the worker signs the resignation letter. However, in the following days, he files a complaint against the company and disputes the validity of the resignation.
In a decision of 9 October 2014, the Labour Court of Liège decides that the employer is the source of the irregular termination of the employment contract, having used intimidation measures to force the employee to resign. The fact that the employee has promptly introduced a claim sets aside the theory of implicit approval of the worker on the resignation.
1.
A worker is employed in a company for 26 years.
He is the subject of denunciation letters from unknown people who accuse him of exercising unfair competition activities. The worker is invited to a meeting with the director of the company. Following the meeting, he then signs a letter of resignation.
Five days later, he files a complaint against the company and within the same month sends a letter, represented by the unions, challenging the resignation.
He finally assigns his former employer before the labor courts.
2.
First, the Court examines the reasons given by the employer to justify a hypothetical dismissal for serious cause, which was presented to the worker as the only other option to the resignation. The Court underlines that the worker had never received a warning in the past. The employer was not able to prove any negligence of the employee. Therefore, a dismissal for serious cause was not justified.
3.
The Court afterwards appreciates the circumstances under which the resignation was given. Here, the worker was notified orally of the invitation to the meeting, without being informed of the subject. The interview has even been advanced earlier in the day, on the initiative of the employer, preventing the worker to organize his defense. The Court notes that the resignation letter was typed and written "in legal terms", suggesting that the company had contacted a lawyer.
4.
Finally, the Court rejects the theory of the eventual worker’s approval regarding the resignation, on the grounds that he filed a complaint only five days after the end of the employment and consulted his union within the same month.
Based on these elements, the Court pronounced the invalidity of the resignation, because of the exercise of psychological violence - without which, the worker would never have given his consent.
The Court sentences the company - author of irregular termination of the employment contract - to the payment of an indemnity in lieu of notice equal to 26 months salary, one month per year of seniority started.
