EN
HR Legal

Retention bonus to employee despite voluntary resignation

logo
Legal news
calendar 27 August 2017
globus Denmark

The Supreme Court has established that a company was obliged to pay a prorated part of a retention bonus to one of its senior employees who resigned before the expiration of the three-year bonus period, because the bonus plan was subject to the Salaried Employees Act’s rules on proration of bonus in the event of termination. The court also established that the bonus was to be settled proportionally regardless of the special criteria of the bonus plan.

In connection with an acquisition of a laboratory company, the company entered into a bonus agreement with its marketing manager. According to the company, the bonus plan was of extraordinary character and the purpose was to affirm the employee in his position after the transfer of the business. However, this specific purpose was not mentioned in the agreement.

The bonus was to be paid at the end of the three-year period, provided that the established bonus criteria were met. The plan was based on a system, where the employee each month could accrue a number of points, determined by three criteria: The size of the bonus pool, the length of employment and the employee’s performance. The earning of bonus points gradually increased during the bonus period, entailing that the employee accrued more bonus in year three than in year one and two.

Nearly two years after the bonus plan was agreed, the marketing manager resigned and the company paid out a part of the total bonus amount, which was calculated based on the point system. The marketing manager claimed that the point system should be set aside and that he was entitled to a proportionate share of the total bonus for all three years. He therefore demanded that the difference between the two amounts be paid.

Hereafter, one of the issues in the case was whether the bonus even constituted a part of the salary which should be prorated according to the Salaried Employees Act. Additionally, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the calculation of the prorated bonus could be based on the criteria of the bonus plan or if the calculation should rather be proportional based on the total bonus period.

The Supreme Court: The situation was not extraordinary

In another verdict from 2012, the Supreme Court found that a company had had such weighty reasons for entering into an agreement about retention bonus with a number of key employees that their bonus plan did not fall within the scope of the special rule on proportionate payment in the Salaried Employees Act. This judgment introduced a very narrow possibility to enter into agreements on retention bonuses.

The circumstances in the case at hand did not have the same extraordinary character as in the verdict from 2012. The Supreme Court took into account that the marketing manager was being made redundant with a need for him to attend to his position during the entire bonus period. Furthermore, the bonus plan had been offered to other employees and its conditions had not been discussed in further detail with the marketing manager. Since, according to the Supreme Court, the retention purpose could have been achieved by offering a bonus without deferred payment and since the criteria of the bonus plan partially depended on his performance, the bonus plan fell within the scope of the Salaried Employees Act.

A proportional part of the total bonus

During the proceedings, the laboratory company claimed that if the bonus plan was subject to the Salaried Employees Act, it had to be comparable to a temporary and increasing salary payment without deferred payment. In that case, the bonus should be calculated after the special bonus point system in which case the bonus only gradually increased.

However, the Supreme Court established that the marketing manager was entitled to a proportional share of the total bonus to be calculated as if he had remained in the company until the expiration of the bonus period. Hence, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Maritime and Commercial Court.

IUNO’s opinion

With this Supreme Court judgment, it has been established anew that companies only have a very narrow access to enter into agreements on retention bonuses with its employees, which are not subject to the Danish Salaried Employees Act. The judgment is based on the specific circumstances of the case, and it is therefore not clarified whether other situations than a business closing will be accepted as an extraordinary situation which qualifies for a retention bonus.

The judgment also shows that bonus agreements with special earning criteria will not be enforceable in a termination situation. Even if the employee is not with the company for the entire bonus period, the employee will be entitled to a prorated part of the total bonus amount. Companies with a need to affirm its employees should consider the alternatives to retention bonuses.

[The Supreme Court’s judgment of 30 June 2017 in case 134/2016]

In connection with an acquisition of a laboratory company, the company entered into a bonus agreement with its marketing manager. According to the company, the bonus plan was of extraordinary character and the purpose was to affirm the employee in his position after the transfer of the business. However, this specific purpose was not mentioned in the agreement.

The bonus was to be paid at the end of the three-year period, provided that the established bonus criteria were met. The plan was based on a system, where the employee each month could accrue a number of points, determined by three criteria: The size of the bonus pool, the length of employment and the employee’s performance. The earning of bonus points gradually increased during the bonus period, entailing that the employee accrued more bonus in year three than in year one and two.

Nearly two years after the bonus plan was agreed, the marketing manager resigned and the company paid out a part of the total bonus amount, which was calculated based on the point system. The marketing manager claimed that the point system should be set aside and that he was entitled to a proportionate share of the total bonus for all three years. He therefore demanded that the difference between the two amounts be paid.

Hereafter, one of the issues in the case was whether the bonus even constituted a part of the salary which should be prorated according to the Salaried Employees Act. Additionally, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the calculation of the prorated bonus could be based on the criteria of the bonus plan or if the calculation should rather be proportional based on the total bonus period.

The Supreme Court: The situation was not extraordinary

In another verdict from 2012, the Supreme Court found that a company had had such weighty reasons for entering into an agreement about retention bonus with a number of key employees that their bonus plan did not fall within the scope of the special rule on proportionate payment in the Salaried Employees Act. This judgment introduced a very narrow possibility to enter into agreements on retention bonuses.

The circumstances in the case at hand did not have the same extraordinary character as in the verdict from 2012. The Supreme Court took into account that the marketing manager was being made redundant with a need for him to attend to his position during the entire bonus period. Furthermore, the bonus plan had been offered to other employees and its conditions had not been discussed in further detail with the marketing manager. Since, according to the Supreme Court, the retention purpose could have been achieved by offering a bonus without deferred payment and since the criteria of the bonus plan partially depended on his performance, the bonus plan fell within the scope of the Salaried Employees Act.

A proportional part of the total bonus

During the proceedings, the laboratory company claimed that if the bonus plan was subject to the Salaried Employees Act, it had to be comparable to a temporary and increasing salary payment without deferred payment. In that case, the bonus should be calculated after the special bonus point system in which case the bonus only gradually increased.

However, the Supreme Court established that the marketing manager was entitled to a proportional share of the total bonus to be calculated as if he had remained in the company until the expiration of the bonus period. Hence, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Maritime and Commercial Court.

IUNO’s opinion

With this Supreme Court judgment, it has been established anew that companies only have a very narrow access to enter into agreements on retention bonuses with its employees, which are not subject to the Danish Salaried Employees Act. The judgment is based on the specific circumstances of the case, and it is therefore not clarified whether other situations than a business closing will be accepted as an extraordinary situation which qualifies for a retention bonus.

The judgment also shows that bonus agreements with special earning criteria will not be enforceable in a termination situation. Even if the employee is not with the company for the entire bonus period, the employee will be entitled to a prorated part of the total bonus amount. Companies with a need to affirm its employees should consider the alternatives to retention bonuses.

[The Supreme Court’s judgment of 30 June 2017 in case 134/2016]

Receive our newsletter

Anders

Etgen Reitz

Partner

Søren

Hessellund Klausen

Partner

Similar

logo
HR Legal

27 March 2024

Rules on pay transparency on the way

logo
HR Legal

27 March 2024

Internal information was not trade secrets

logo
HR Legal

10 March 2024

Every beard you take

logo
HR Legal

25 February 2024

A salary freeze is not always a breeze in the Nordics

logo
HR Legal

25 February 2024

Next stop, neutrality town!

logo
HR Legal

25 February 2024

Money speaks louder than words

The team

Alexandra

Jensen

Legal advisor

Anaïs

Kjærgaard Crouzet

Associate

Anders

Etgen Reitz

Partner

Caroline

Thorsen

Junior legal assistant

Cecillie

Groth Henriksen

Senior associate

Johan

Gustav Dein

Associate

Julie

Meyer

Senior legal assistant

Kirsten

Astrup

Managing associate (on leave)

Maria

Kjærsgaard Juhl

Legal advisor

Sofie

Aurora Braut Bache

Managing associate

Søren

Hessellund Klausen

Partner