He is employed as a bellboy in a hotel in the Dutch side on a fixed-term contract until April 6, 2020. He learns on May 12, through a letter dated March 25 and sent by WhatsApp by his employer, that his contract is no longer valid. is not renewed. He decides to file a complaint against his employer. The case was examined by the Sint Maarten Magistrates' Court on November 25.
According to the documents in the file, it turned out that the contract was to end on April 6, but after that date, the latter continued to receive instructions.
At the beginning of April, the context is particular: the hotel is closed to the public following confinement. Management creates a WhatsApp group to communicate its instructions to its employees. Said employee is integrated into this group and thus receives a schedule on which his name is mentioned, indicating his working hours for the periods from April 1 to April 15 and from May 1 to May 15.
The judges consider that nothing prevented the employer from sending before April 6 the letter dated March 25 stipulating the end of the contract, at least he did not justify the contrary. They observed that the employee had received pay slips for time worked after April 6, even though these slips were issued late.
For the court, the contract was therefore extended by six months. He asserts that “the employer has effectively failed by not employing him any more and by not continuing to pay him a salary. This means that the employer is obliged to repair the damage he has caused ”.
In addition, the employee had filed a complaint to obtain payment of his entire salary between March 1 and April 6, only a part had been. The employer had explained that he had paid a lower salary "under the disasters and events provision of the employment contract", a provision according to which the employer can reduce the working days to 3 per week in the event of disasters that hinder seriously the business activities of the company. The employee stated that this is an inadmissible clause and therefore cannot be applied. On condition, nevertheless specifies the court, that the employee is informed. It was not the case. The employer is therefore ordered to pay the difference in salary, increased by 10% as well as compensation of USD 5 in damages.
7,328 total views
No comments