Uitspraak Nº 9886976 EA VERZ 22-310. Rechtbank Amsterdam, 2022-08-25

• ECLI: ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2022:5174
• Docket Number: 9886976 EA VERZ 22-310
• Date: 25 Agosto 2022
• Court: Rechtbank Amsterdam (Neederland)

RECHTBANK AMSTERDAM

Afdeling privaatrecht

zaaknummer: 9886976 EA VERZ 22-310

beschikking van: 25 augustus 2022

func.: 33494

beschikking van de kantonrechter

I n z a k e

[verzoeker]

wonende te [woonplaats]

verzoeker

nader te noemen: [verzoeker]

gemachtigde: mr. R.P.E. Halfens en mr. R.R. Surquin

t e g e n

Accenture B.V.

gevestigd te Amsterdam

verweerster

nader te noemen: Accenture

gemachtigde: mr. Chr.F. Kroes en mr. C.A. Ozinga

VERLOOP VAN DE PROCEDURE

[verzoeker] heeft een verzoek gedaan om wegens de opzegging van de arbeidsovereenkomst door
Accenture ten laste van Accenture een billijke vergoeding toe te kennen. Daarnaast heeft [verzoeker] verzocht om Accenture te veroordelen een vergoeding wegens onregelmatige opzegging en een transitievergoeding te betalen.

Accenture heeft een verweerschrift ingediend.

Op 6 juli 2022 is de zaak mondeling behandeld. [verzoeker] is in persoon verschenen, bijgestaan door zijn gemachtigden. Accenture is verschenen bij mw. [naam 1] , [functie] , eveneens bijgestaan door haar gemachtigden. Voorafgaand aan de zitting heeft [verzoeker] nog aanvullende stukken ingediend.

Partijen hebben hun standpunten toegelicht, mede aan de hand van een pleitnota, en vragen van de kantonrechter beantwoord.

Vervolgens is beschikking bepaald op heden.

Feiten

1. Als gesteld en niet (voldoende) weersproken staat het volgende vast.

1.1.

[verzoeker] , geboren [geboortedatum] 1978, is op 1 september 2017 in dienst getreden bij Accenture. Hij was laatstelijk werkzaam in de functie van Managing Director, tegen een maandsalaris van € 15.195,30 bruto, exclusief emolumenten, waaronder vakantiegeld en een benefits budget van € 1.266,22 per maand.

1.2.

Op de arbeidsovereenkomst van [verzoeker] is de Bedrijfscode (Code of Business Ethics) van toepassing. Daaruit volgt dat respectloos gedrag of intimidatie niet wordt getolereerd.

1.3.

Naast de Bedrijfscode geldt ook de “Speaking Up and Zero Tolerance for Retaliation” Policy. Accenture moedigt daarin haar medewerkers aan om melding te maken van overtredingen van de wet of de Bedrijfscode. Deze melding kan worden gedaan via de door Accenture aangewezen kanalen.

1.4.

Op 28 februari 2022 heeft Accenture via het interne systeem een klacht ontvangen van een werkneemster van Accenture. Deze werkneemster is in de procedure anoniem gebleven en wordt daarom ‘Melder 1’ genoemd. Van de klacht, die ziet op gedrag van donderdag 24 februari 2022 omstreeks 23.00 uur, is een schriftelijk verslag gemaakt. Daarin staat, voor zover relevant, het volgende:
Primary issue:
Respecting the Individual : Sexual Harassment : Unwelcome touching, clearly of a sexual nature
Summary: RP alleges that subject sexually harassed an employee by touching their rear.
(…)
Details:
On February 24, 2022, at 11 PM, [verzoeker] sexually harassed one employee (name and job title unknow). The employee has reported the issue to [naam 2] . [naam 3] knows about the situation; however, he does not know the identity of the employee. [verzoeker] has sexually touched the employee on the employee’s rear. There is a witness (name and job title withheld) to the situation. The employee did not feel in danger working around [verzoeker] again; however, the employee did not feel comfortable working with [verzoeker] anymore. (…)
Reporter Additional Information:
(…)
To add: He also asked me to go on a dinner with him, where we won’t be discussion business, but other things, while he was touching me.

1.5.

Bij Accenture is binnen Europa een centrale onderzoeksafdeling. Naar aanleiding van een melding als hiervoor genoemd, wordt door deze afdeling onderzoek gedaan. Dat onderzoek gebeurt middels online interviews. Deze afdeling heeft geen verbintenis met een land in Europa. Het advies wordt gegeven aan de moeder organisatie.

1.6.

De centrale onderzoeksafdeling heeft naar aanleiding van de melding van ‘Melder 1’onderzoek gedaan. Dat heeft geresulteerd in (totaal) 2 meldingen, namelijk die van Melder 1 en één van Melder 2, en per melding 2 getuigen. Getuige 1 en Getuige 2 hebben verklaard over Melding 1, getuige 3 en 4 over Melding 2. Met deze personen zijn interviews afgenomen, waarvan notulen zijn gemaakt. Deze notulen, niet zijnde een transcript van de gesprekken, zijn door de onderzoeksafdeling opgemaakt. Deze zijn niet door de Melders of Getuigen ondertekend. In de notulen van de interviews met deze anoniem gebleven personen staat, voor zover relevant, het volgende:
Melder 1:
- Subject was most senior person there.
(…)
- Melder 1 had alcohol through the evening, but she did not recall how many drinks, she had wine. There was not much food – shad had 2 bitterballen (tapas) which is not much.
- Subject had alcohol too. She does not know how many drinks but at a certain point he bought a bottle of coffee liquor and started offering shots to other, including Melder 1.She cannot say if he was drunk.
- Everyone was having conversations in a group and all of a sudden, she was talking to him. She cannot recall who approached whom. They were standing next to each other. Not sure what they were discussing, something about supply chains she was trying to get to know him, he asked what she was doing.
- Then he started getting a bit touchy and the conversation became a bit weird, he said she had a really nice facial expression.
- He was touching/caressing her back throughout the evening. She felt uncomfortable – she would have been sharper if she was going out socially but was not expecting this with colleagues.
- He then asked her to go for dinner with him and said, “we won’t be discussing business, but other things” and it was during this conversation that he grabbed her bottom with a full-hand. She was upset at this point in this interview. She was not sure if the dinner proposal was before or after he did this. He also asked for her phone number around this time and she gave it to him.
- She was super-shocked. She is not sure of her reply but went with the flow a bit. She wished she had responded differently but she didn’t know what to say, she wasn’t strong enough in the moment, it was shocking and overwhelming.
- Her collague, Getuige 1, saw the shocked expression on her face and asked her what was wrong(…).
- Getuige 1 did not see Subject touch her bottom as he was standing in front of her.
- She is not sure how long it took but she moved away from Subject and told Getuige 1 what was going on. He was also shocked and paralysed. They did not respond or do anything in the moment.
- Another colleague, Getuige 2, a manager within [department], was also there talking to Getuige 1 and heard her telling Getuige 1 what had happened. Getuige 2 is leaving Accenture, his last day is maybe today.
(…)
- Afterward, they they continued to have drinks, she did not understand it to be really wrong because she was still in shock and paralysed – so she was not trying to avoid him. She still spoke to him and he touched her back again but not her bottom(…).
Getuige 1:
When referring to Melder 1, Getuige 1 explained that “She’s quite junior and didn’t tell all details” but Getuige 1 confirmed that he did see something. (…)
Getuige 1 explained that at one point, Melder 1 looked at him “with a little fear in her eyes” and then looked at him in the same way for a second thme. Getuige 1 explained that he moved a little closer to Melder 1 and he saw that “ [verzoeker] had his hand on her back…between her back and bottom”. (…) and stated that “it’s not basically where you would put your hand on a colleague”.

(…).
Getuige 1 added that [verzoeker] may have asked Melder 1 “to go to a meeting with him, but not to talk about work” – Getuige 1 thinks that it was along the lines of going to get a bite to eat. Getuige 1 explained that he did not hear this himself, but this is what Melder 1 had told him.
(…)
- Getuige 1 stated that de day after the incident, he and Getuige 2 had an hour-long call with Melder 1 where Getuige 2 outlined that the incident was not in line with ACN’s values and that he hoped that Melder 1 would pursue via a formal route.
(…)
Afther the interview, getuige 2 provided the name of melder 2) as someone else who is rumoured to have experienced similar behaviour from [verzoeker] ..
Getuige 2:
(…)

Asked if he had witnessed a sexual harassment incident that evening, Getuige 2 said that he did not see the incident itself, but what he had noticed was the response of Melder 1 after it. She went to Getuige 1 first and then to Getuige 2 and told him that Subject was talking and complimenting with her (e.g. she was looking nice) and that he touched her back, not sure until how low. Getuige 2 thinks Melder 1 said that Subject had touched het bottom as well. Melder 1 was not happy for sure. This occurred a few moments after Subject left.

(…)
Melder 2:

(…)
- When asked if she had experienced any kind of sexual harassment from Subject, she said yes but she was still deciding if she wanted to report it or not. (…)
- An evening (it was or August 14th or Sept 18th 2020) they had an after work drink with other colleagues from the strategy practice. (…)
-At a certain point Melder 2 was sitting at a table with other MDs but there were people leaving and she seated next to Subject. He started discussing about not work-related things and told her “I wish you were older and have a relationship with you”. Melder 2 doesn’t remember exactly what else he said, but he became touchy and physical and start putting his hand on her leg and his arm around her and down to her waste. She had to slap him off her leg. He did that in a very inappropriate way. She did not feel safe. He was not taking a “no” as an answer and he was just repeating it.
(…)
-He did the same and was still touchy with Melder 2 on the way to the restaurant, on the public transport and until they reached the restaurant.
-He had difficulties...