A sportswear brand, which did not want to give a permanent contract to an employee from Sri Lanka, was wronged by a sub-court this week. The employee continues to work for an indefinite period.

The employee had obtained a residence permit as a knowledge migrant thanks to his job at the company headquartered in Amsterdam. He received a one-year contract last September. In April this year, his line manager emailed him: “I wanted to inform you that your contract will be extended indefinitely. I hope this is well received. Enjoy King’s Day.“

Department of Human Resources

The manager sent that email after HR asked him whether the employee should get a new permanent or temporary contract. He wrote that the employee still has some areas for development, but he believes he will grow into his role in time. Another manager from the human resources department disagreed with him.

At the end of June, the employee was told in the appraisal interview that his contract would not be extended or converted to a permanent contract. Because he did not agree to this, the clothing brand wanted to let him work an extra month as a compromise.

The employee filed a lawsuit before the district court judge, pointing out his direct manager’s commitment. He also wanted Brand to reapply for a work permit, otherwise his right of residence would expire.

The clothing brand said that the CEO was not authorized to make this commitment, and that the commitment was not made unconditionally. The district court judge disagreed. “The quoted email is short, concise and clear, containing only two sentences with only one message: The employment contract has been extended indefinitely,” the district court judge wrote. In governance.

Irrelevant

The District Court judge held that it “did not matter” whether that director was authorized to carry out the obligation in accordance with the company’s rules. “The only question to be answered is whether the plaintiff could and should have understood that the obligation was made through authority. At the hearing, the plaintiff explained that the manager was his first point of contact when it came to his employment contract and that he also managed the operations Daily business care.

According to the District Court judge, the company gave the employee a permanent contract via email. The clothing brand must now submit a new application for a work permit and also pay the employee his gross monthly wage of €3,279 during the period in which he is not yet allowed to work because the permit has not yet been granted.