EN
HR Legal

Single parent could remain employed despite summary dismissal

logo
Legal news
calendar 12 June 2022
globus Norway

Summarily dismissed employees cannot usually remain in their position during court proceedings. In a recent case however, the Norwegian Court of Appeal’s did not follow this main rule. The decisive factor for letting the employee remain in her job was that it was likely that the summary dismissal was unlawful.

A single parent that was the head of administration and marketing in a company was terminated because of a lack of trust and discontent. However, shortly after the termination and during the notice period, the employee was invited to a discussion meeting about a possible summary dismissal due to an agreement she had entered into.

After the meeting, she received a summary dismissal. The company’s reaction was a result of the employee having negotiated an agreement without the right to sign. As a result of that agreement, the company was committed to let a supplier advertise towards its customers, which reflected upon it negatively.

In the employee’s following claim for an unjustified summary dismissal, she requested to remain in her position during the court proceedings. This issue therefore had to be considered before deciding on the summary dismissal.

Lack of action was acceptance

The Norwegian Court of Appeal concluded that the employee could remain in her position during the court proceedings. This was because the court found it doubtful that the summary dismissal was justified, after an initial review of the case.

Although the right to sign was not part of the employee’s job description, she had committed the company to similar agreements on several previous occasions. As the company had neither questioned nor sanctioned the employee for this previously, the company had accepted that this was part of her job. It was also emphasized that the agreement had not committed or affected the company in any economic way.

Social considerations also played a part in this decision. The employee was the sole provider of two children, had a mortgage and would not receive social security payments before several months after the summary dismissal. A summary dismissal would therefore have a significant, negative affect on the employee.

IUNO’s opinion

Contrary to terminations, summarily dismissed employees will as a main rule not have the right to remain in their position during court proceedings. As a summary dismissal significantly affects the employee, as in this case, an exception applies when it is doubtful that the summary dismissal is justified. When deciding this, the court will consider social considerations.

When considering a summary dismissal, IUNO recommends that companies consider how an employee will be affected. For example, an employee’s old age, disease or handicap can affect the employee’s chances of gaining new employment. Whether a summary dismissal is justified must therefore be considered up against the interest of both parties.

[The Norwegian Court of Appeal’s judgement LB-2022-63021 of 12 May 2022]

A single parent that was the head of administration and marketing in a company was terminated because of a lack of trust and discontent. However, shortly after the termination and during the notice period, the employee was invited to a discussion meeting about a possible summary dismissal due to an agreement she had entered into.

After the meeting, she received a summary dismissal. The company’s reaction was a result of the employee having negotiated an agreement without the right to sign. As a result of that agreement, the company was committed to let a supplier advertise towards its customers, which reflected upon it negatively.

In the employee’s following claim for an unjustified summary dismissal, she requested to remain in her position during the court proceedings. This issue therefore had to be considered before deciding on the summary dismissal.

Lack of action was acceptance

The Norwegian Court of Appeal concluded that the employee could remain in her position during the court proceedings. This was because the court found it doubtful that the summary dismissal was justified, after an initial review of the case.

Although the right to sign was not part of the employee’s job description, she had committed the company to similar agreements on several previous occasions. As the company had neither questioned nor sanctioned the employee for this previously, the company had accepted that this was part of her job. It was also emphasized that the agreement had not committed or affected the company in any economic way.

Social considerations also played a part in this decision. The employee was the sole provider of two children, had a mortgage and would not receive social security payments before several months after the summary dismissal. A summary dismissal would therefore have a significant, negative affect on the employee.

IUNO’s opinion

Contrary to terminations, summarily dismissed employees will as a main rule not have the right to remain in their position during court proceedings. As a summary dismissal significantly affects the employee, as in this case, an exception applies when it is doubtful that the summary dismissal is justified. When deciding this, the court will consider social considerations.

When considering a summary dismissal, IUNO recommends that companies consider how an employee will be affected. For example, an employee’s old age, disease or handicap can affect the employee’s chances of gaining new employment. Whether a summary dismissal is justified must therefore be considered up against the interest of both parties.

[The Norwegian Court of Appeal’s judgement LB-2022-63021 of 12 May 2022]

Receive our newsletter

Anders

Etgen Reitz

Partner

Similar

logo
HR Legal

28 March 2025

EFTA Court: Norway can restrict hiring of temporary agency workers

logo
HR Legal

27 March 2025

Self-organiser was not a self-organiser

logo
HR Legal

27 March 2025

Police assistant was dismissed for several data breaches

logo
HR Legal

7 March 2025

Employee became liable for competitive activities

logo
HR Legal

27 February 2025

Employee was not bound by unfair non-competition clause

logo
HR Legal

23 February 2025

Employees lost stock options after termination

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

Maria

Kjærsgaard Juhl

Legal advisor

Sunniva

Løfsgaard

Legal assistant

Søren

Hessellund Klausen

Partner