EN
HR Legal

Retention bonus accepted by the Danish Supreme Court

logo
Legal news
calendar 13 February 2012
globus Denmark

An employee was not entitled to a proportionate share of a retention bonus because the employee terminated his contract of employment before the retention period expired.

A major Danish energy company was to merge two control rooms for the electricity grid. In that connection, the company was to ensure qualified staff until the merger in the control room that was to be shut down.

The company therefore made an employment retention agreement with the employee on a retention bonus that would be payable if the employee was employed full time at the time when the merger was completed. The employee would also be entitled to his retention bonus if the company dismissed the employee during the retention period.

However, the employee terminated his position before the employment retention period expired and believed that he was entitled to a proportionate share of the retention bonus under the Danish Salaried Employees Act. The Maritime and Commercial Court in Copenhagen agreed with the employee on this point.

The Supreme Court: No share of the bonus to the employee

The Supreme Court emphasised that the employee was remunerated in accordance with the applicable collective agreements that among other things provided for various pay supplements and the right to bonus on achievement of set objectives. Moreover, the retention bonus would be payable regardless of the employee's and company's performance. The purpose of the retention agreement was also to retain qualified staff in order to secure energy supplies.

Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that the retention bonus was solely a rewarding of the employee to encourage him to stay with the company until the merger was completed. The retention bonus was not comparable to pay, and the employee was therefore not entitled to a proportionate share.

IUNO's opinion

With this decision, the Supreme Court has accepted the use of retention bonuses which are conditional on the employee not terminating his contract of employment for a specific period. It is, however, important to be aware of the very special circumstances of the case. The decision does not open up for a general acceptance of a retention bonus not being subject to the rule in the Danish Salaried Employees Act requiring payment of a proportionate share in case of termination of the contract of employment before expiry of the retention period.

It is therefore uncertain when a company may award a retention bonus which does not give the employee a claim for a proportionate share if the employee leaves the company before expiry of the period. It is important to be aware of this risk when using retention bonuses and drafting employment retention agreements.

[Supreme Court judgment of 30 January 2012, case no. 243/2009]

A major Danish energy company was to merge two control rooms for the electricity grid. In that connection, the company was to ensure qualified staff until the merger in the control room that was to be shut down.

The company therefore made an employment retention agreement with the employee on a retention bonus that would be payable if the employee was employed full time at the time when the merger was completed. The employee would also be entitled to his retention bonus if the company dismissed the employee during the retention period.

However, the employee terminated his position before the employment retention period expired and believed that he was entitled to a proportionate share of the retention bonus under the Danish Salaried Employees Act. The Maritime and Commercial Court in Copenhagen agreed with the employee on this point.

The Supreme Court: No share of the bonus to the employee

The Supreme Court emphasised that the employee was remunerated in accordance with the applicable collective agreements that among other things provided for various pay supplements and the right to bonus on achievement of set objectives. Moreover, the retention bonus would be payable regardless of the employee's and company's performance. The purpose of the retention agreement was also to retain qualified staff in order to secure energy supplies.

Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that the retention bonus was solely a rewarding of the employee to encourage him to stay with the company until the merger was completed. The retention bonus was not comparable to pay, and the employee was therefore not entitled to a proportionate share.

IUNO's opinion

With this decision, the Supreme Court has accepted the use of retention bonuses which are conditional on the employee not terminating his contract of employment for a specific period. It is, however, important to be aware of the very special circumstances of the case. The decision does not open up for a general acceptance of a retention bonus not being subject to the rule in the Danish Salaried Employees Act requiring payment of a proportionate share in case of termination of the contract of employment before expiry of the retention period.

It is therefore uncertain when a company may award a retention bonus which does not give the employee a claim for a proportionate share if the employee leaves the company before expiry of the period. It is important to be aware of this risk when using retention bonuses and drafting employment retention agreements.

[Supreme Court judgment of 30 January 2012, case no. 243/2009]

Receive our newsletter

Anders

Etgen Reitz

Partner

Søren

Hessellund Klausen

Partner

Similar

logo
HR Legal

25 April 2025

Companies must notify authorities of mass redundancies before they take effect

logo
HR Legal

25 April 2025

A better collective agreement did not cover employee

logo
HR Legal

24 April 2025

Company could limit breastfeeding breaks to two hours

logo
HR Legal

9 April 2025

Not gender discrimination to pay male employee less

logo
HR Legal

8 April 2025

Police officer with criminal relations was terminated

logo
HR Legal Technology

2 April 2025

Draft bill to ensure responsible use of AI

The team

Alexandra

Jensen

Associate

Alma

Winsløw-Lydeking

Senior legal assistant

Anders

Etgen Reitz

Partner

Cecillie

Groth Henriksen

Senior associate

Elias

Lederhaas

Legal assistant

Emilie

Louise Børsch

Associate

Johan

Gustav Dein

Associate

Kirsten

Astrup

Managing associate

Laura

Dyvad Ziemer Markill

Legal assistant

Maria

Kjærsgaard Juhl

Legal advisor

Sunniva

Løfsgaard

Legal assistant

Søren

Hessellund Klausen

Partner