The man has been managing the fleet of a cleaning company since 2020. That fleet is partly electric and some employees therefore also receive a charging station of the business. The fleet manager arranges logistics: he must ensure that the posts are installed or removed at employees at home as soon as someone leaves.
Friendly technician
That also happens in 2022. The charging station of a former employee first ends up in the warehouse of the cleaning company, but the fleet manager has a better destination in mind: his own garden. He takes him home and a friendly technician comes to install the post – worth around € 2000.
Director fired because of relationship with wife of subordinate, does get a big bonus
Only after more than a year does his manager notice that the man’s private charging station is between the business subscriptions of the company. That raises questions: the fleet manager does not have a company car at all. In a conversation he admits the charging station that he has indeed taken home, but according to him there is no question of theft. It would only be about ‘loan’.
Lease car
The employer thinks differently: “We have let you know as theft, to which you answered with ‘sorry’ and indicated that you would like to return the charging station. You have taken a charging station to your house without permission or consultation. This is completely unacceptable for us and we count this strongly,” is the letter.
Employee (20) dismissed after coke use at company party, judge flute employer back
A lawsuit follows, in which the man states that he took the charging station on loan. According to him, that he did not make any agreements about this because his manager was at home at that time. He therefore demands a reimbursement of € 120,000 due to incorrect dismissal, but the subdistrict court judges that his resignation is justified.
Compensation
The fleet manager does not leave it at it and appeals. In it he argues that he did have permission from his manager to take the charging station with him. This would have been agreed via WhatsApp, but he has no evidence of that. The judge finds the story remarkable, because the man admitted that he had not had permission in earlier conversations.
Employee fired after many times sleeping: not even woken up by warning from Baas
The Court therefore, like the subdistrict court judge, ruled that the dismissal is justified. The man does receive a transition payment of € 4557. Because he ‘neatly’ administered the charging station at his home in the system of the employer, he himself paid the electricity costs and also knew that it was traceable for his employer, there is no question of serious culpable acts and a transition payment is appropriate.