{"id":6045,"date":"2025-04-22T09:53:28","date_gmt":"2025-04-22T06:53:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/immediate-dismissal-for-minor-offenses-is-that-really-allowed\/"},"modified":"2026-08-16T15:46:26","modified_gmt":"2026-08-16T12:46:26","slug":"immediate-dismissal-for-minor-offenses-is-that-really-allowed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/en\/immediate-dismissal-for-minor-offenses-is-that-really-allowed\/","title":{"rendered":"Immediate dismissal for minor offenses: Is that really allowed?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n

Immediate termination<\/a> is often considered the most severe penalty under labor law. It means that the employment contract is terminated immediately, without a notice period or severance pay. Many people believe that this applies only to cases of serious theft, fraud, or violence. However, case law shows that even minor infractions\u2014petty offenses\u2014can lead to immediate dismissal. Think of taking a can of soda, eating a handful of peanuts, or withholding a postmark. In this blog, we discuss several court rulings in which such seemingly insignificant behaviors nevertheless led to legally valid termination. <\/p>\n\n

A can of Red Bull\u2014and yet, he was fired<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n

The ruling by the Court of Appeal in The Hague<\/a> concerned a cashier who had taken a can of Red Bull from the shelves and had not paid for it. When she was confronted about this, she lied about what had happened. The company policy clearly stated that consuming store merchandise without paying first was not permitted. <\/p>\n\n

The court ruled that this action had irreparably damaged the trust between the employer and the employee. The seriousness of the matter lay not only in the taking of the can, but above all in the fact that the employee had lied about it. The summary dismissal was upheld. <\/p>\n\n

50 euro cents and the restroom<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n

Another case<\/a> involved a restaurant worker who kept a 50-cent coin\u2014intended for restroom use\u2014for herself. The employer considered this embezzlement and terminated her employment on the spot. The subdistrict court judge, in summary proceedings, ruled that it was plausible that this termination would also hold up in a trial on the merits. The small amount involved did not change this: it was a matter of principle and a breach of trust. <\/p>\n\n

Yogurt and salmon salad past its expiration date<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n

In another case before the Amsterdam District Court , an employee took <\/a>a carton of Optimel\u2014whose expiration date was that same day\u2014and a container of salmon salad that was already past its expiration date without permission. Although the products were of negligible value and in poor condition, the supermarket\u2019s policy was strict: taking items without paying was not permitted. <\/p>\n\n

The subdistrict court judge ruled that this conduct, too, justified immediate dismissal, because the rules were clear and the employee had violated them.<\/p>\n\n

St. Nicholas gifts for nieces<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n

This issue also arises outside the supermarket sector. In a case before the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal<\/a>, an employee of a printing company took three rejected books home to give to his nieces for Sinterklaas. He had not asked for permission to do so. Despite his long tenure, age, and the consequences of the termination, the court ruled that his conduct justified immediate dismissal. Integrity and honesty were paramount, even when it came to rejected goods. <\/p>\n\n

Other cases of dismissal for trivial reasons in case law<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n

Case law contains many more examples of minor offenses that have led to immediate dismissal:<\/p>\n\n