Except that that is often not the case, because of things like federalism, treaties and so on. Anyway, you're missing the point; you're now talking about a judgement from jurisdiction B, whereas earlier you were arguing that the rules from jurisdiction A could apply in jurisdiction B.

If a plaintiff goes to jurisdiction A with a judgement from jurisdiction B (eg pursuing the money as you suggested), you wouldn't retry the case under the rules of jurisdiction A. The reason is that the defendant (in this case the company headquartered in Florida qua jurisdiction A) agreed to the rules of the Netherlands (qua jurisdiction B) when it filed to get a business license there.

It would be different if a Dutch worker had sought employment with a company in Florida, and then complained when he didn't like the employment standards he found himself subjected to. It's the fact that the company committed itself to NL/EU law when opening a subsidiary there that subjects them to its judgments. The issue of the business license imposes conditions upon its beneficiary within the scope of its use.

Suppose something is legal your jurisdiction but not in mine. While you are in your jurisdiction, I can't sue or prosecute you for doing The Thing there. But if you come to my jurisdiction, do The Thing, and then return to your own, you can't shake off that liability because you don't get to bring your legal environment with you. The only exception I can think of offhand is with international diplomats, who get quasi-immunity because they are formally representing a different country, and whose embassies/consulates are allowed to operate under the law of their home rather than host countries.