Introduction
Instant dismissal is the most drastic measure an employer can take. It means that employment ends immediately, without notice or transition compensation. In practice, this measure mainly comes into play for serious offenses such as fraud, violence or aggravated theft. But may an employer also proceed to instant dismissal for relatively minor misdeeds, such as taking a pack of yogurt or a packing slip? In this blog, we discuss three rulings in which exactly that was at play.
Pack of yogurt and salmon salad: dismissal of canteen employee
In a case before the Amsterdam subdistrict court, a supermarket canteen 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 acknowledged taking the products, but argued that the dismissal was disproportionate, in part because of her long and flawless employment.
The judge did not go along with this. The supermarket's company regulations clearly stated that taking goods without paying was strictly forbidden. Employees had also been warned that violation of this rule could result in summary dismissal. The subdistrict court found that the trust between employer and employee had been damaged to such an extent that the employer could reasonably proceed with dismissal. This was not altered by the small scale of the incident.
Six euros in deposit: end of employment anyway
The Amsterdam Court of Appeals also reached a similar verdict in another case. This case involved a supermarket employee with long and impeccable employment. However, she took a packaging receipt worth six euros that did not belong to her. The employee indicated that it was a mistake, but camera footage showed that she deliberately put the coupon in her bag.
The employer had a zero-tolerance policy on theft and embezzlement. The employee was aware of this policy and had signed statements explicitly stating that policy. Despite the relatively low value of the amount and the lack of prior misconduct, the court ruled that summary dismissal was justified. The conduct was found to have violated integrity requirements to such an extent that trust was permanently damaged.
A bottle of water costs the job
A third telling ruling also comes from the Amsterdam Court of Appeals. This case involved an airport employee who had poured a bottle of water intended for passengers into his Dopper provided by the employer. The employee argued that he was thirsty and the water would otherwise be thrown away anyway.
The employer saw this as theft, in part because there were strict rules within the organization about taking goods, no matter how small. Because of the high importance of integrity and the exemplary behavior expected of employees in an international security environment, the employee was summarily dismissed.
The court ruled that this too was a justified summary dismissal. Although the value of the water was negligible, the fact that the employee knew the rules of conduct, that the goods were company goods and that there had been deliberate conduct weighed in the balance.
What do these statements say together?
These three cases show that the value of the property taken away is not decisive in instant dismissal. Instead, judges look at the following factors:
- Is there intentional or deliberate deception?
- Was there a clear rule of conduct or policy that was violated (zero-tolerance policy)?
- Was the employee aware of the potential consequences?
- Has the trust between employer and employee been permanently damaged?
- What is the nature of the job and industry?
When these conditions are met, even a relatively minor misstep, such as a drinking yogurt or a bottle of water, can constitute legally valid summary dismissal.
Conclusion
Even small missteps can have major consequences. Employees would do well to take company regulations seriously and never assume that something small will "pass." Especially in industries where trustworthiness and integrity are key, employers often have strict policies in place, and judges support them, provided the policies are clearly communicated and consistently applied. For employers, this underscores the importance of clear rules of conduct and clear communication about the consequences of violations.
This blog was written by mr. Stijn Blom, employment lawyer at Arbeidsadvocaat.nl B.V. Stijn has extensive experience in employment law and supports entrepreneurs and employees on a daily basis with a variety of employment law issues. From dismissal cases to drafting watertight contracts and regulations - with his practical and personal approach, he helps employers and employees move forward. Want to know more? Visit Stijn's page.
Arbeidsadvocaat.nl is happy to think with you if you have questions about dismissal. Please feel free to contact us .
April 2025
