Unilateral modification of an essential element of the employment contract
08/10/2021

Balancing the interests of the employer and employee is not relevant when assessing whether or not a unilateral modification of an essential element of the employment contract, such as the position, the salary, the working arrangements or the place of work, is permissible. The only thing that matters is whether the essential element in question has been changed to such an extent that it can no longer be said that the original employment contract is being executed. This is what the Supreme Court ruled in a recent judgment of 6 September 2021.

If an essential element of the employment contract (depending on the situation this can – generally speaking – be the position, the salary, the working arrangements or the place of work) is changed unilaterally by the employer, the employee can claim that he was implicitly dismissed by the employer (which entitles the employee to the 'usual' termination indemnities), unless the modification of the essential element can be considered as insignificant. The question is how the 'importance' of this modification should be assessed.

In a recent judgment of 6 September 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that no balance of interests should be made when assessing whether the modification of an essential element of the employment contract constitutes a significant change.

The Court clarifies that it is only necessary to examine whether the essential element in question has been changed to such an extent that it cannot be assumed that the original employment contract will still be executed after this modification. The Supreme Court ruled that the parties' interest in the modification or maintenance is not relevant. Therefore, it is the extent to which the essential element has been changed that must be considered in order to determine whether the unilateral modification is significant or not, without taking into account the interests of the employer or the employee. A balance of interests is – according to the Supreme Court – not at stake.

The question arises which impact this one judgment of the Supreme Court will have on the case law in which - in the case of a unilateral modification of an essential element of the employment contract in the framework of a restructuring or financially difficult times - the economic interests of the employer can be weighed against the personal interests of the employee.


Action point
 
It is possible that, as a result of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the labour courts will, in certain cases, be more inclined to find a unilateral modification of an essential element of the employment contract. Employers should therefore pay extra attention to the question whether the intended unilateral modification is important or not.

Related : Claeys & Engels


Click here to see the ad(s)
All articles Labour law

Lastest articles Labour law

Update gunstregime voor expats
20/05/2022

Wij verwijzen naar onze e-zine van 13 januari 2022 waarin wij het nieuwe gunstregime voor expats in België toelichten...

Read more

« Mystery calls » : l’inspection sociale mieux armée pour lutter contre la discrimination
06/05/2022

Le législateur vient d’adopter une loi modifiant les pouvoirs de l’inspection sociale en matière...

« Mystery calls » : l’inspection sociale mieux armée pour lutter contre la discrimination Read more

Transfer of undertakings and pre-pack – CJEU’s nuanced approach
05/05/2022

On 28 April 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a judgement regarding the application of the wo...

Read more

Internal staff reorganization – What you need to know before modifying your organizational chart
11/04/2022

While necessary to cope with the developments, trends or other events that irremediably impact the life of a business, mod...

Internal staff reorganization – What you need to know before modifying your organizational chart Read more

LexGO Network