EN
HR Legal

Two cases for the history books

logo
Legal news
calendar 25 October 2024
globus Sweden

The Labour Court has made its first judgments concerning grounds for dismissal since the rules were changed in 2022. A telemarketer and a warehouse picker were both dismissed due to poor work performance under the main agreement and EPA, respectively. The Court found that there were objective grounds for the dismissal in both cases.

The Labour Court has made two judgments concerning grounds for dismissal.

In the first case, a telemarketer worked for a telemarketing company where he was supposed to hit a monthly sales budget and make at least 250 call attempts per day. After a year of not achieving his monthly budget or call attempts, the employee was dismissed. Before the dismissal, the company had issued two written warnings over the course of five months, an action plan and instructions on how to do the work.

In the second case, a warehouse worker who was a union representative had not met his targets. The targets were to pick 80 items an hour and have one hour of non-working time per day. Just before the dismissal, the employee had, on average, 0.70 items picked per hour and 7.63 hours of non-active working time. Before the dismissal, the company had issued four written warnings over the course of five months, and an action plan.

Clear communication was key

The Court concluded that there were objective grounds for the dismissal in both cases.

A key component was that both companies had issued several warnings, and the employees were given reasonable time to improve. The decisive factor for the telemarketer was that he had refused to obey orders or follow instructions and, therefore, breached his employment contract. The main factor for the warehouse worker was his non-active working time. It did not matter that he was a union representative.

IUNO’s opinion

The cases are the first to investigate the grounds for dismissal since the main agreement and following reform of the EPA in 2022. The cases show that, despite the changes, the assessment is not too different from before.

IUNO recommends companies have clear internal guidelines for dealing with dismissal in the event of poor performance. With the right process, objective grounds are significantly easier to prove. This often includes warnings which, depending on the case, can require multiple. Following up and instructing the employee in how to improve the performance can also be necessary.

[The Labour Court’s decision of 9 and 16 October 2024 in cases 75/24 and 78/24]

The Labour Court has made two judgments concerning grounds for dismissal.

In the first case, a telemarketer worked for a telemarketing company where he was supposed to hit a monthly sales budget and make at least 250 call attempts per day. After a year of not achieving his monthly budget or call attempts, the employee was dismissed. Before the dismissal, the company had issued two written warnings over the course of five months, an action plan and instructions on how to do the work.

In the second case, a warehouse worker who was a union representative had not met his targets. The targets were to pick 80 items an hour and have one hour of non-working time per day. Just before the dismissal, the employee had, on average, 0.70 items picked per hour and 7.63 hours of non-active working time. Before the dismissal, the company had issued four written warnings over the course of five months, and an action plan.

Clear communication was key

The Court concluded that there were objective grounds for the dismissal in both cases.

A key component was that both companies had issued several warnings, and the employees were given reasonable time to improve. The decisive factor for the telemarketer was that he had refused to obey orders or follow instructions and, therefore, breached his employment contract. The main factor for the warehouse worker was his non-active working time. It did not matter that he was a union representative.

IUNO’s opinion

The cases are the first to investigate the grounds for dismissal since the main agreement and following reform of the EPA in 2022. The cases show that, despite the changes, the assessment is not too different from before.

IUNO recommends companies have clear internal guidelines for dealing with dismissal in the event of poor performance. With the right process, objective grounds are significantly easier to prove. This often includes warnings which, depending on the case, can require multiple. Following up and instructing the employee in how to improve the performance can also be necessary.

[The Labour Court’s decision of 9 and 16 October 2024 in cases 75/24 and 78/24]

Receive our newsletter

Anders

Etgen Reitz

Partner

Similar

logo
HR Legal

25 October 2024

The (un)free movement of third-country nationals

logo
HR Legal

27 September 2024

Double discrimination against part-time carers

logo
HR Legal

26 September 2024

Diagnosis: no discrimination

logo
HR Legal

26 September 2024

Work permits were required for offshore work on the Danish continental shelf

logo
HR Legal

30 August 2024

Artificial Intelligence at the workplace – new rules from the EU have entered into force

logo
HR Legal

28 August 2024

Sucker punch

The team

Alexandra

Jensen

Legal advisor

Alma

Winsløw-Lydeking

Junior legal assistant

Anders

Etgen Reitz

Partner

Cecillie

Groth Henriksen

Senior associate

Johan

Gustav Dein

Associate

Julie

Meyer

Senior legal assistant

Kirsten

Astrup

Managing associate (on leave)

Maria

Kjærsgaard Juhl

Legal advisor

Søren

Hessellund Klausen

Partner