Smoking director misses out on $200,000 severance pay

This is evident from a recent ruling by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal.

The 49-year-old man joined the company in the spring of 2023 as director of the Dutch subsidiary of the American transport company Pentagon Freight Services. In that position, he earned a monthly salary of 13,500 euros, including holiday pay.

In February last year, the director joined a Teams video conference on his phone in his car on his way home. The meeting included several colleagues, including his manager in the UK.

At the end of the meeting and having arrived home, the director lit up a joint. Because the man accidentally did not close his Teams connection but turned on his camera, this was visible to his colleagues. A day later, the director was summarily dismissed by his supervisor.

However, the man did not accept this. He went to court to contest his dismissal. He lost that case in June of last year. According to the subdistrict court in Haarlem, the dismissal was justified, and his ex-employer did not have to pay him a cent in severance pay.

It now appears that the man has appealed against that ruling, using essentially the same arguments.

For example, he would smoke joints because of severe neck pain, and the employer would not really have a zero tolerance policy against the use of alcohol and drugs. The man pointed out that the company also occasionally consumed a beer or wine during working hours.

But the ex-director also failed in his second attempt. The Amsterdam court also dismissed his arguments, according to the latest ruling . According to the judges, there was no evidence that the man had to use joints as medicine, and the employer did indeed have a zero tolerance policy against the use of alcohol and drugs.

According to the judges, it is not illogical that this strict policy, which the employer has included in the staff regulations, does not necessarily lead to summary dismissal in the event of alcohol or drug use. For example, there is a significant difference between having a drink during social activities or a business lunch during working hours and lighting up a joint during a business meeting.

The court was also not sensitive to the argument that the director should not have been dismissed because of the serious personal consequences of that measure. The fact that the man lost his well-paid job, did not receive a transition payment or other severance payments, and was not eligible for unemployment benefits as a result of the 'culpable dismissal', did not have to be a reason for the employer to keep him employed.

The man should have been aware of the improper nature of his actions, 'especially in his managerial position', the ruling said.