2.2.
[verweerder] , geboren op [1969] , is op 1 maart 2005 in dienst getreden van (een rechtsvoorganger van) [verzoekster] en heeft sindsdien diverse functies vervuld (binnen het vakgebied [vakgebied] ). Sinds 1 juli 2015 vervult hij de functie van [functie 1] binnen de afdeling [afdeling] . In deze functie is [verweerder] verantwoordelijk voor het initiëren, ontwikkelen, communiceren, implementeren, monitoren van de uitvoering, evalueren en optimaliseren van het wereldwijde beloningsbeleid en de beloningsstrategie van [verzoekster] . Het doel van dit beleid en de strategie is het werven, vasthouden en betrekken van talenten om concurrerend en kostenefficiënt te blijven.
Op dit moment leidt [verweerder] in deze functie een team van drie medewerkers. De leidinggevende van [verweerder] is de [functie 2] , sinds 2017 is dat [A] (hoogst verantwoordelijke binnen [verzoekster] op HR-gebied en lid van het [team 1] ). Het [team 1] valt direct onder de executive board (bestaande uit CEO [B] en een CFO).
[verweerder] werkt 40 uur per week en zijn salaris bedraagt € 201.387,77 bruto per jaar inclusief 8% vakantietoeslag en te vermeerderen met emolumenten (zoals bonus, leaseauto en pensioenvoorziening). De arbeidsovereenkomst geldt als te zijn aangegaan voor onbepaalde tijd.
2.4.
De HR-organisatie binnen [verzoekster] wordt gevormd door een staf onder het [team 1] : het [team 2] ( [team 2] ). Dit [team 2] is samengesteld uit vier “heads” (te weten de [functie 1] ( [verweerder] ), de [functie 3] , de [functie 4] ( [C] ) en de [functie 5] ( [D] ) en vier directeuren van de business groups, elk met een eigen team. . In 2018 heeft er binnen de HR-organisatie een reorganisatie plaatsgevonden in het kader van het programma ‘ [programma] ’. Het Nederlandse [team 3] , onder leiding van [C] , is daarbij samengevoegd met het [team 4] team, onder leiding van [verweerder] . [verweerder] werd de eindverantwoordelijke voor dit grotere team. Later zou definitief worden besloten over de [naam] organisatie, over de vraag welke verantwoordelijkheid binnen welk team zou liggen.
Begin 2019 heeft het [team 2] een besluit genomen over de algehele opzet van de HR organisatie. Dit (voorgenomen) besluit moest worden omgezet in een adviesaanvraag aan de centrale ondernemingsraad (COR). Op aanraden van [C] , die voor HR belast was met de begeleiding van het proces met de COR, is de COR met medewerkers uit de HR-organisatie gaan spreken, waaronder met [verweerder] . Daarna heeft de COR haar advies uitgebracht en is de definitieve beslissing omtrent de opzet van de HR-organisatie, althans het onderdeel [naam] , genomen. De eerder samengevoegde [team 3] zijn daarna weer grotendeels gesplitst, in een team van [verweerder] en een team van [C] .
2.6.
Per e-mail van 26 juni 2019 heeft [A] aan CEO [B] (en met CC aan [E] , [functie 6] , en [F] naar aanleiding van dit gesprek geschreven:
“Yesterday I met with [verweerder] on 2 topics:
1-my response to the Works Council advice on [naam] structure. While I have not had formal advice from the WC whether they agree with me or not, I have had verbal consent (…)
2-feedback I have received from his team, and the impact of his behavior on the [team 2] .
(…)
We discussed next steps:
- he wanted to digest (this was not the outcome he wanted; he has put a lot of work in to set the current team up).
- we discussed that this means a rol in his team (not filled) for NL [naam] Director is eliminated. (…)
2.I also shared the collateral damage this has caused:
- a fractured [team 2] ; disappointed and frustrated that an RFA everyone had alligned to was then challenged by an [team 2] member with the WC directly; they feel disrespected
- some members of the [team 3] shared with me very worrying feedback about his behaviour such a stubbornness; arrogance; anger; causing stress; not allowing them to work in NL matters (he denied this. It would seem this has improved since, but certainly they told me initially they were restricted in the support they were to give NL / [G] )
- (in a previous conversation I shared with him that I understood he had forwarderd to his team the RFA response to all team members individually with a preface ‘we’re at war’. He did not deny this, said it may on reflection been extreme) (…)
- While the [team 2] have not voiced any expectation, they have shared this frustration with me, and already have started to distance themselves from him. (He did not recognise this, but I certainly see it)
He responded that he felt I too was keeping my distance, and I replied that I have been trying to stay neutral in my relationships amongst the [team 2] , and given the turn of events I had become more guarded in our conversations, emails that I sent etc. Because the last few months I had reason to feel they may be misused (eg forwarderd on, used in the wrong context).
He asked me if I still trusted him. I said the trust for me was not broken, but I could not deny I was more cautious. These events had disappointed me. I asked him if he trusted me in return and he said yes. He said (…) in my heart it sounds like I’ve made a decision already (to let him go)(…)
I did say in return that it would be a hard road now to repair this (…)
I suggested that we both take my holiday break (…)to reflect on this. (…)
Given the atmosphere in the 9th floor and the feedback I received (bullying behaviour; ‘I feel sick every time I get an email’; he’s threatening; he’s in a turf war etc) and the [team 2] distancing themselves, actually I don’t feel there is any option but to find a way for him to leave. He’s been in the role for over 10 years, and I think a lot of this behaviour is a manifestation of built up boredom/frustration/hidden agendas/knowing too much. I actually for the most part can get on OK with [verweerder] but I know many can’t.
(…)
He could however do alternative roles e.g. FORCE programme manager. On this project, he’s very driven, it plays in his strengths. RemCo / governance / compliance matters play to his strengths; detailed management of complex projects all could suit him.”
2.7.
Per e-mail van 19 juli 2019 heeft [A] aan [verweerder] zelf over het gesprek op 25 juni 2019 en een later gesprek geschreven:
“Thank you for the conversation on Tuesday, to follow up on the discussion we had on 25 June (before I left on holiday).
In summary, there are three areas of focus against which we agreed a plan:
1. The relationship with [C] .
* I would like to introduce a mediator to work on the repair of this relationship. It is important to me that I do not have fractures in the working effectiveness of my direct reports, and in particular between the two of you.
* I will look to arrange this when you return from your holiday
2. The feedback from your team members.
* You mentioned you spoke to some members of your team to garner more feedback, off the back of what I shared with you in June, and you did not get the same messages.
* As we said, we need to be sure that team members own the feedback they give, and they are consistent.
Otherwise it is difficult to know what to do with it, and to manage it responsibly.
* I agreed to revert to some of the team members on their feedback and ‘test’ it, and then we determine how we take forward.
3. The broader relationships with the [team 2] .
* As I shared, the process around the RFA had caused frustration amongst many [team 2] members. The feedback I have received is that they were surprised and frustrated that after the alignment on the process and content, you shared your own different views with the Works Council directly. While we can go back on the course of events, and what we believe was right or wrong, the impression exists.
* Alongside this, it is felt you can work in isolation of the [team 2] on some matters. (…) Once again, whether one believes this is right or wrong, better or worse, the feedback is there.
* You mentioned that despite this feedback, you feel your working relationships with your colleagues are ongoing and effective.
*All up, I think it’s important that we take the opportunity to reset these relationships to be sure you and they are set up for success
* And I feel there is more of you that can be untapped by exploring your strengths and your leadership style. Overall, I do feel the [team 2] potentially misses out on the fuller contribution you can make as an HR leader (not just as Head of [naam] ). You have great experience, commitment and ideas. And of course we need your structured way of working and your ‘blueness” in the team as well.
*I would like to invest in a personal coach for you, to explore your leadership style and further improve your leadership effectiveness, which I believe can support in the resetting and refreshing of your ways of working and relationships with colleagues and team members alike.
* I will start this on your return from holiday. (The other alternative is that you go through the first cohort of the new Leadership programme, where coaching is given to all leaders and there is 360 feedback also as part of that…we could leverage this is some way with the added support of a personal coach. This I’ll also explore). (…)”
Na dit gesprek is [E] op verzoek van [verweerder] zijn coach geworden.
2.8.
Op 31 januari 2020 heeft [A] [verweerder] laten weten dat zij over wil gaan tot beëindiging van zijn arbeidsovereenkomst. Per e-mail heeft zij daarna aan [verweerder] geschreven:
“Last year we had difficult times with, amongst others, the Works Council process and the unrest and unhappiness in your team. I received a lot of feedback and complaints, which I shared with you at the time. At that time I seriously considered if it was the right point to terminate your contract. I decided not, as I believed time might heal wounds, and that a second chance was a fair way forward. Unfortunately for me as I reflect on the last 4-5 months, I observe:
-
That the general sentiment towards you by (some) members of the HR function, particularly in Corporate, has not changed. Last week again I was faced with challenges on why, given your behaviour last year, you remain as a HR leader. As we spoke, people can easily talk about others, but in this case I believe this has an impact on your performance and leaderships effectiveness and credibility. I do not see that you can be fully effective as an HR leader in this context;
-
Your performance tailed off significantly particularly in the second half of the year, and much of this is down to not being able to activate programmes and ideas ‘across the line’ with the [team 2] and with other teams. I feel this is connected to the first point;
-
Lastly, our own working relationship I do not feel is productive. We spoke about this several times last year - I said I had become guarded, and this has not changed. We do not have the effective, smooth relationship that we had, and I cannot see a good way forward.
Therefore we have come to the conclusion that the current situation cannot be continued, and we should part ways and terminate your employment with [verzoekster] . (…)”
2.10.
Op maandag 10 februari 2020 heeft [verweerder] [A] laten weten de beëindiging van zijn arbeidsovereenkomst niet te accepteren en heeft hij per e-mail een ‘memo’ toegestuurd aan [A] :
“The reason for the termination of my employment agreement - which has been mentioned in the termination agreement which you sent to me on 4 February 2020 - is “…the inability of the Employer and the Employee to mutually agree the way the position should be filled”. I strongly object tot this and dispute that any such reason exists. During my career with [verzoekster] - as well as its legal predecessors - I have always fulfilled my position and performed my obligations in a succesful and appreciated manner. I therefore do not accept termination of my employment agreement under whatever conditions.
As a consequence, I do not see any need to examine “…whether there is any suitable alternative position available…” for me. At the same time, I also note - via your e-mail of 7 February 2020 - that no sincere and actual efforts were undertaken to his end (…) I am of course open to meet and discuss to ensure that the continuation in my current role continues to be succesfull.”
[A] heeft hierop per brief van 14 februari 2020 (puntsgewijs) gereageerd:
“I cannot agree with your conclusion, and I would like to outline my rationale:
Behaviour Expectations:
Your expectations on standards of behaviour are different than those of [verzoekster] . A fundamental example of this, is your behaviour demonstrated last year on which I already gave you quite some feedback (25 June 2019). The most severe of the behavioural feedback given by team members, to me directly, included threatening, shouting, and intimidating behaviour. I also shared with you that I received feedback from outside HR, giving examples of the same behaviour. I observed your uncontrolled temper myself in a meeting with a colleague.
I our meeting in June 2019, I also said that it would be a hard road now to repair this. (…)”
Op 18 februari 2020 hebben partijen weer met elkaar gesproken en per e-mail van 28 februari 2020 heeft [verweerder] (puntsgewijs) weer per memo gereageerd op de brief van [A] . Hij heeft wederom laten weten dat hij wil praten hoe hij de vervulling van zijn functie succesvol kan maken:
“I note that you have changed the reasoning for the proposed termination of my labor agreement. (…) You also mention “feedback outside HR” which is even more surprising.”
.jpg?width=50&height=55)
.jpg?width=50&height=55)
