WILLEMSTAD – The Court of First Instance has ruled that Maduro & Curiel's Bank (MCB) may terminate the employment of a senior IT employee who refused to return to the office following the death of his mother, concluding that the employment relationship had become irreparably damaged. The court awarded the employee gross compensation of XCG 225,000.
The employee joined MCB in March 2009 as a senior programmer and analyst and most recently earned nearly XCG 12,000 gross per month. Under a hybrid work agreement, he worked three days from home and two days at the office.
After his mother passed away in January 2025, MCB temporarily allowed him to work full-time from home. The arrangement was conditional on him participating in guidance through the company's occupational health service. He was also temporarily relieved of evening and weekend on-call duties.
Initially, the company physician recommended that the employee continue working entirely from home. However, the employee later declined further medical evaluations and rejected several proposals from MCB aimed at facilitating medical support or a gradual return to the original hybrid work schedule.
In July 2025, an occupational physician advised that the employee return to the office one day per week, gradually increasing to two days. The employee disagreed, maintaining that his grieving process was not yet complete.
Although he continued to perform his duties from home, MCB argued that his prolonged absence placed additional pressure on IT colleagues, who had to take over evening and weekend shifts. The bank also said projects were delayed and that his physical presence was needed for meetings and knowledge transfer.
The employee subsequently failed to attend appointments arranged with another occupational health provider. On September 2, 2025, MCB issued what it described as a final instruction ordering him to cooperate. He refused, stating that he was not ill and had not requested medical assistance.
Following his refusal, the bank revoked his access to its digital work environment, preventing him from carrying out his duties.
MCB initially sought permission from the Directorate of Labor in October 2025 to terminate the employment agreement. That request was denied in December, prompting the bank to take the matter to court.
The court concluded that the employment relationship had broken down beyond repair, noting that both parties had acknowledged they no longer had confidence in continuing to work together.
According to the ruling, MCB had made sufficient efforts to support the employee and was not required to allow him to work permanently from home without supporting medical advice. The judge further found that the employee should have understood that, beginning in July 2025, he was expected to resume working at least part of the week from the office. His refusal to cooperate with the occupational health service was deemed his own responsibility.
At the same time, the court recognized several mitigating factors in the employee's favor. He had maintained a good employment record since joining the bank in 2009 and continued to perform his work satisfactorily throughout the dispute. The judge also accepted that the employee may genuinely have believed that permission to work entirely from home remained in effect, although that misunderstanding ultimately remained his responsibility.
The employee had requested compensation equivalent to at least 30 months' salary. Instead, the court awarded XCG 225,000 gross, representing nearly 20 months of salary. Any severance payment (cessantia) would be deducted from that amount.
The court's decision was issued on April 20, giving MCB until April 28 to withdraw its request for dissolution because of the compensation award. If the bank chose not to withdraw the request, the employment agreement would be dissolved effective May 1.
The judgment, which was published on July 16, does not indicate whether MCB exercised its right to withdraw the request. As a result, the published ruling alone does not definitively confirm whether the dismissal and compensation payment ultimately took effect.