Introduction

Immediate termination is the most drastic measure an employer can take. It means that the employment relationship ends immediately, without a notice period or transition payment. In practice, this measure is typically applied in cases of serious misconduct, such as fraud, violence, or grand theft. But can an employer also proceed with immediate termination for relatively minor infractions, such as taking a carton of yogurt or a packaging voucher? In this blog, we discuss three court rulings in which exactly that was at issue.

A container of yogurt and salmon salad: canteen worker fired

In a case heard by the Amsterdam Subdistrict Court, a supermarket cafeteria employee was summarily dismissed after twelve years of service. The reason: she had taken a carton of drinking yogurt and a container of salmon salad without paying. The employee admitted to taking the products but argued that the termination was disproportionate, particularly given her long and flawless employment record.

The judge did not agree. The supermarket’s employee handbook clearly stated that taking merchandise without paying was strictly prohibited. Furthermore, employees had been warned that violating this rule could result in immediate termination. The small claims court judge found that the trust between employer and employee had been damaged to such an extent that the employer was reasonably justified in proceeding with the termination. The minor nature of the incident did not alter this conclusion.

A six-euro deposit: termination of employment after all

The Amsterdam Court of Appeals also reached a similar ruling in another case. This case involved a supermarket employee with a long-term and impeccable employment record. However, she took a packaging voucher worth six euros that did not belong to her. The employee claimed it was a mistake, but surveillance footage showed that she had deliberately put the voucher in her bag.

The employer had a zero-tolerance policy regarding theft and embezzlement. The employee was aware of this policy and had signed statements that explicitly referred to it. Despite the relatively small amount involved and the absence of prior misconduct, the court ruled that the immediate dismissal was justified. The conduct was deemed to be in such violation of the integrity requirements that trust had been permanently damaged.

A bottle of water costs a fortune

A third notable ruling also comes from the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. This case involved an airport employee who had poured a bottle of water—intended for passengers—into his employer-issued Dopper bottle. The employee argued that he was thirsty and that the water would have been thrown away anyway.

The employer considered this to be theft, in part because the organization had strict rules regarding the removal of goods, no matter how small. Given the great importance of integrity and the exemplary conduct expected of employees in an international security environment, the employee was terminated immediately.

The court ruled that this was also a case of justified immediate dismissal. Although the value of the water was negligible, the court took into account that the employee was familiar with the rules of conduct, that the items in question were company property, and that the employee had acted intentionally.

What do these statements mean when taken together?

These three cases show that the value of the stolen goods is not the deciding factor in summary dismissal. Instead, judges consider the following factors:

Is there intent or deliberate deception?
Was there a clear code of conduct or policy that was violated (zero-tolerance policy)?
Was the employee aware of the possible consequences?
Has trust between the employer and the employee been permanently damaged?
What is the nature of the position and the industry?

If these conditions are met, even a relatively minor infraction—such as a drinkable yogurt or a bottle of water—can constitute valid grounds for immediate dismissal.

Conclusion

Even minor missteps can have major consequences. Employees would do well to take company policies seriously and never assume that something minor is “acceptable.” Especially in sectors where reliability and integrity are paramount, employers often enforce strict policies, and courts support these policies provided they are clearly communicated and consistently applied. For employers, this underscores the importance of clear rules of conduct and transparent communication about the consequences of violations.

This blog was written by Stijn Blom, Esq., an employment law attorney at Arbeidsadvocaat.nl B.V. Stijn has extensive experience in employment law and assists employers and employees on a daily basis with a wide range of employment law issues. From dismissal cases to drafting watertight agreements and policies—with his practical and personalized approach, he helps employers and employees move forward. Want to learn more? Visit Stijn’s page.

Arbeidsadvocaat.nl is happy to help you if you have any questions about termination. Please feel free to contact us .

April 2025