Collecting Data on License Plate Holders of (Family Members of) Port Personnel Constitutes (Severely) Culpable Conduct

The employee joined the municipality on January 1, 2019, as a Permits Officer. On July 24, 2023, the National Prosecutor's Office sent an email to the municipality indicating that the employee was suspected of official corruption and computer trespass. She allegedly used her work account to collect data on license plate holders of (family members of) port personnel from Rotterdam and subsequently passed this information on to third parties. The employee was arrested and is being prosecuted for this conduct.

Following the notification from the National Prosecutor's Office, the municipality suspended the employee by letter dated July 26, 2023. Subsequently, the municipality requested the subdistrict court to dissolve the employment contract with the employee primarily on the grounds of culpable conduct.

The subdistrict court dissolved the employment contract. The court agreed with the municipality that the employee did not access the data for functional purposes. It was established that data on license plate holders of port employees from Rotterdam had been accessed via the employee's account. It was also established that this data had surfaced in a criminal investigation. The employee was arrested and interrogated in this context and, according to statements from the Public Prosecutor’s Office submitted by the municipality, will be prosecuted for this. It was incumbent upon the employee to provide an explanation as to why this data was accessed via her account. She did not (sufficiently) do so. She did not disclose what she had told the police and also did not provide any further explanation in a discussion with the municipality. Even during the oral hearing, the employee did not state more than that she did not remember whether she had accessed this data.

The fact that the municipality did not verify until after a remark from the subdistrict court during the oral hearing whether there had been permit applications for the data accessed by the employee does not change the foregoing. The municipality stated that this was not the case, which the employee disputed. Even if the subdistrict court disregards this, it cannot conclude based on the established facts that the employee accessed the data for functional purposes with the intent to pass it on to third parties. It was then up to the employee to propose and substantiate a credible alternative. She did not do this in any way.

The subdistrict court considers the employee's actions to be so serious that the municipality cannot be expected to continue the employment relationship with her. The court noted that a possible criminal conviction does not need to be awaited, as civil (evidence) law has different rules for establishing facts. Facts or rights asserted by one party and not or insufficiently contested by the other party must be regarded as established.

But it doesn’t end there. The employee also loses her entitlement to the statutory transition payment, as the court deems her actions to be severely culpable. It is widely known that drug-related crime is a major societal issue. Any form of involvement in this is unacceptable. It is completely unacceptable when, as in this case, such involvement occurs during work hours and using the authority entrusted by the employer. This weighs even more heavily considering the employee is a civil servant, and higher standards of integrity are expected from civil servants due to their (exemplary) function. Therefore, the employee is not entitled to a transition payment, and the employment contract is terminated with immediate effect.

This blog was co-written by Mila Nanulaitta, a student intern specializing in Labor Law.