WILLEMSTAD – A trainee security officer at the Sentro di Detenshon i Korekshon Kòrsou (SDKK) was lawfully dismissed after repeatedly refusing to wear a prescribed uniform cap and being absent from training without authorization, the Civil Service Appeals Council has ruled.
The woman had been temporarily employed as an aspiring security officer since September 2024. Her appointment was tied to the duration of her training to become a security officer.
In June 2025, she received a final warning after repeatedly failing to comply with internal rules requiring her to wear a cap as part of her uniform.
The trainee disputed that the cap was a mandatory uniform item, arguing that it had been given to her as a gift. The Appeals Council rejected that explanation. Because the cap had been issued together with the other uniform components and her supervisor had explicitly instructed her to wear it, the Council found that she should have understood that it formed part of the prescribed uniform.
Despite receiving a final warning, she continued to refuse to wear the cap.
Unauthorized absences also contributed to the government's decision to terminate her employment. On May 26, 2025, the trainee received permission to leave for several hours to complete an assignment connected to another course, but she did not return for the remainder of the day.
Two days later, on May 28, she was absent for the entire day without authorization.
According to the Appeals Council, such conduct was inconsistent with what could reasonably be expected from someone training to become a security officer. Discipline, reliability and compliance with instructions are particularly important requirements for the position.
The government subsequently granted the woman honorable discharge effective October 1, 2025, citing the repeated violations of uniform requirements and her unauthorized absences. Authorities concluded that there had been insufficient improvement despite several warnings.
The woman challenged the decision and also argued that her temporary appointment had not been legally terminated because she had only been informed orally that her employment would end.
The Appeals Council rejected that argument as well. It ruled that under Curaçao's civil service legislation, termination of this type of temporary appointment does not have to be communicated in writing.
The woman had been informed during a meeting on August 1, 2025, that her employment would terminate on October 1. According to the Council, this constituted a valid notice and satisfied the required two-month notice period.
The Council stressed that the case did not involve a disciplinary dismissal for misconduct or a formal determination that the trainee was unsuitable for the position. Instead, it concerned the government's authority to terminate a temporary civil servant's appointment.
In such cases, the court exercises limited review of the government's decision. The Council concluded that the government's interest in terminating the appointment outweighed the trainee's interest in continuing her training.
Her appeal was therefore rejected, leaving the dismissal in place.