Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Neth.3 THE NETHERLANDS

Neth.3 THE NETHERLANDS Summary dismissal - need for immediate action once grounds are known HEADNOTES Facts The respondent, Theelen, was in the service of the appellant, Brinkman GmbH, a company incorporated under German law. His functions were, on the one hand, to be present a few hours per week in a showroom of the employer in the Netherlands and, on the other, to act as sales representative for the employer, using his own car for that purpose. From 23 September to 31 October 1992 he was unable to work because of illness. On 9 October, he received a sum of f 20.000 from a customer in favour of the employer; according to him, he informed the employer of the receipt of this sum the next day by telephone. He did not, however, transfer the sum. On 27 October 1992 he was summarily dismissed. The employer informed him that he had been dismissed because (a) he was not authorised to receive the money; and (b) he had failed to pay the money to the employer. Theelen contested the dismissal in the Cantonal Court. He sought a declara- tory judgment that the dismissal was void as well as the award of wages for http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Labour Law Reports Online Brill

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/neth-3-the-netherlands-qUkVJ29SE7

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
Copyright © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
eISSN
2211-6028
DOI
10.1163/221160296X00371
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Summary dismissal - need for immediate action once grounds are known HEADNOTES Facts The respondent, Theelen, was in the service of the appellant, Brinkman GmbH, a company incorporated under German law. His functions were, on the one hand, to be present a few hours per week in a showroom of the employer in the Netherlands and, on the other, to act as sales representative for the employer, using his own car for that purpose. From 23 September to 31 October 1992 he was unable to work because of illness. On 9 October, he received a sum of f 20.000 from a customer in favour of the employer; according to him, he informed the employer of the receipt of this sum the next day by telephone. He did not, however, transfer the sum. On 27 October 1992 he was summarily dismissed. The employer informed him that he had been dismissed because (a) he was not authorised to receive the money; and (b) he had failed to pay the money to the employer. Theelen contested the dismissal in the Cantonal Court. He sought a declara- tory judgment that the dismissal was void as well as the award of wages for

Journal

International Labour Law Reports OnlineBrill

Published: Jan 1, 1995

There are no references for this article.