A Dutch telemarketer employed by an American company was fired after he refused to share his screen and leave camera on while at work. That dismissal was unjustified, the judge ruled. 9 hours of camera surveillance in a day is disproportionate and not allowed in the Netherlands.
That is the ruling of the Zeeland-West Brabant District Court, according to the verdict made public on Tuesday (1).
The Dutch employee joined Chetu Inc. in January 2019, a company that develops, produces and publishes software and advises entrepreneurs on it. Worldwide, the company employs some 2,600 people. The man worked from his home in Rijswijk and never visited the U.S. headquarters.
On August 23, 2022, the Dutch employee received an e-mail from his employer instructing him to participate in the Corrective Action Program (CAP) Virtual Classroom. Part of the program, once logged in, required him to leave his camera on continuously.
Two days later, the telemarketer responded to the request. In an e-mail, he said he did not feel comfortable having his camera on for 9 hours a day. "This is an invasion of my privacy and makes me feel uncomfortable. This is why my camera is not on. You can already follow all activities on my laptop and I share my screen," he wrote to his boss.
His employer insisted several times that he turn on his camera. When the man refused to do so, he received his termination letter by e-mail on Aug. 26. By not turning on his camera, he was guilty of refusing to work. That was reason enough to summarily dismiss him. He did receive an amount of more than 4,200 euros credited to his bank account on September 1, but there was no payment reference or explanation.
The Dutch marketer did not accept that and challenged his dismissal in court. He demanded that his dismissal be reversed and that his wages continue to be paid until the dispute was settled. Furthermore, the plaintiff asked for "fair compensation" for the wrongful termination of his employment contract and a transitional payment. Finally, he demanded a final settlement of vacation pay and a penalty of one thousand euros per day for each day Chetu Inc. remained in default.
Dutch defended himself by saying that there was no pressing reason to justify his summary dismissal. Moreover, the dismissal letter was not specific. "Camera surveillance for 9 hours a day is disproportionate and not allowed in the Netherlands. Moreover, he was already being monitored for output via software installed on his laptop. There was no question of work refusal," he said in his defense.
Chetu Inc. did not exercise its right to defend itself in court.
The Zeeland-West Brabant District Court ruled that the man's dismissal was not legally valid. The American company failed to provide a text and explanation of the reasons for summarily dismissing the Dutchman. "As a result, the notice of dismissal does not meet the requirement that that reason was made sufficiently clear to the plaintiff," the court ruled.
The court also cited a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. This sets strict conditions for observing employees. This applies not only to employees employed by government organizations, but also in private law employment relationships. Requiring the Dutch telemarketer to leave his camera on for 9 hours a day violates his right to privacy and respect for his private life.
Having determined that the man's dismissal was unlawful, the court awarded him damages. All told, this comes to between 70,000 and 80,000 euros. In addition to this substantial sum, the American software company must also annul the man's non-competition clause.
https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2022:5656
