Dismissal upheld even though the employer had not offered alternative employment

A healthcare worker was dismissed from his position in the home care service of the Municipality of Oslo after his professional authorization was revoked due to insufficient professional competence. It was undisputed that he could no longer continue working as a healthcare worker following the loss of his authorization. The question before the courts was whether the municipality was obliged to offer him another suitable position.

The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was valid

Contrary to the District Court and the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court found that the dismissal was valid.

Even where a dismissal is based on circumstances relating to the employee, the employer may, in certain situations, have a duty to offer alternative suitable employment. Whether such an offer has been made is, however, only one factor in the assessment of whether the dismissal constitutes a disproportionately severe measure. Consequently, any obligation to offer alternative employment is limited and depends on the circumstances of the particular case. The Supreme Court held that such an obligation presupposes that the reason for the dismissal does not prevent the employee from performing other work, that the employee has a particularly strong interest in continuing the employment relationship, and that the employer has another vacant position available. In the present case, the Supreme Court found that the employee’s age and length of service supported the conclusion that the municipality had a duty to consider offering another suitable position. However, the municipality had conducted reasonable investigations into whether such positions were available. The dismissal was therefore justified, even though no alternative employment had been offered.

The significance of the judgment

The judgment provides guidance on the circumstances in which an employer is required to offer alternative suitable employment when terminating an employee for reasons relating to the employee.

Source: Supreme Court