This results from a decision made public on Friday by the Noord-Holland district court in Haarlem.
Tighter rules
She worked for ABN Amro for eighteen years, the last of which was at the Schiphol airport branch. She there she handled about fifty transactions a day.
–
–
In 2020, ANB Amro decided to stop exchanging money after De Nederlandsche Bank tightened the rules, partly due to the risks of criminal money laundering.
Swap makeup
In July of that year the receptionist served a customer who wanted to change a 500 euro note. He advised the man to buy a 1 dollar bill so he could give him change in smaller bills.
–
–
After the bank discovered the transaction, the employer went to court to fire the woman. According to the bank, culpable behavior, dysfunctions and an interrupted employment relationship would have occurred.
Customer service
According to the woman, the bank was not allowed to fire her because the rules were not clear enough to her. The cashier also pointed out that the rest of her makeup didn’t make her any better, but she just wanted to serve a customer.
–
–
In early 2021, the Haarlem Sub-District Court ruled in favor of the employer. ABN Amro liked the woman with no transition or severance pay on the street to produce.
tail
Goes public since Friday pronounce It now appears from the court of the northern Netherlands that the mouse still has its tail. On appeal, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled in April 2022 that, although the woman acted grossly guilty, it still granted her a transitional payment of € 12,500 for reasons of “reasonableness and fairness”.
–
–
However, that was the end of the good news for the woman. The ruling shows that the UWV ruled in 2021 that she, despite her eighteen years of work at ABN Amro, did not receive unemployment benefits because she had culpably become unemployed. To protest this decision, the woman went to court.
Whistle at WW
The UWV is obliged to form its own opinion as to whether an unemployment benefit claimant has become guilty of unemployment, regardless of any court decision, and must also substantiate this opinion.
–
–
The new course of action in court did nothing for the former cashier. The court recently ruled that the UWV is justified in finding the woman lost her job through her own fault and can therefore whistle for her unemployment benefit.
According to the court, the woman should have known that the swap trick was not allowed and that high integrity requirements are imposed on the bank’s employees. “Not receiving unemployment benefits can have serious consequences for the employee, but this does not outweigh the seriousness of the behavior.”
–
–
