Practice areas: Employment Law
An employee who steals money from his employer’s safe and cash register over a period of several months, carefully conceals the theft and even returns to the workplace during his annual leave to steal more money. Can he avoid summary dismissal by relying on a gambling addiction?
The employee had worked for a DIY retail store for more than ten years as Sales Department Manager. In this role, he was part of the store’s management team and was, among other things, responsible for the safe. CCTV footage revealed that, between April and August 2024, he had repeatedly taken money from the safe and cash register. The thefts were carefully planned. The employee ensured that he was the one counting the cash in the safe and entering the amounts into the system. He also used accounting entries to conceal discrepancies in the cash register.
When colleagues discovered a discrepancy of almost €8,000 in the safe, the employee offered to resolve the issue. He even returned to the store on his day off. However, rather than actually resolving the problem, he stole more money and subsequently adjusted the safe balance to zero.
On 19 August 2024, the employer confronted him with the findings. The employee admitted to the thefts and explained that he was struggling with a gambling addiction. He needed money to gamble and had therefore started taking money from his employer. He was summarily dismissed that same day.
The employee challenged his dismissal in court and subsequently appealed (ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2025:3321) that the dismissal was not legally valid. He put forward three arguments:
The Court of Appeal rejected all three arguments.
According to the employee, the employer should have intervened as early as 5 August 2024, when the first discrepancy in the safe was discovered. The Court of Appeal disagreed. At that stage, there were several possible explanations for the discrepancy, including a counting error. It was not until 13 August 2024, following a second irregularity, that a more concrete suspicion of theft arose.
The employer subsequently reviewed the CCTV footage, involved HR and an in-house lawyer, and confronted the employee on his first working day after his leave. The Court of Appeal ruled that the employer had acted sufficiently promptly and that the requirement to dismiss without delay had therefore been met.
This was the employee’s main defence. He argued that his gambling addiction constituted an illness and that the employer should therefore have referred him to the occupational health physician before proceeding with the dismissal.
The Court of Appeal rejected this argument as well. Because the employer had not been aware of the gambling addiction and was not required to infer from the employee’s statement that his addiction had deprived him of control over his actions.
The Court also considered the way in which the employee had acted. Over several months, he had systematically stolen money, concealed the administrative evidence and even returned to the workplace during his leave to steal again. This pointed to deliberate and calculated conduct. Furthermore, there was no medical evidence demonstrating that his gambling addiction had prevented him from controlling his actions.
The gambling addiction therefore did not prevent the employer from summarily dismissing him.
The employee also lost on this point. Under Section 7:673(7)(c) of the Dutch Civil Code, an employee is not entitled to a statutory transition payment if the termination of employment results from the employee’s seriously culpable conduct or omission.
The Court of Appeal found that this was the case. The employee had stolen money over several months, using different methods and acting systematically. His personal circumstances, including more than ten years of service and his financial responsibilities as the main breadwinner, did not alter this conclusion. Nor did the statutory hardship exception provide grounds for awarding a transition payment.
Dutch law imposes strict requirements on the validity of a summary dismissal. The consequences for an employee are significant: they lose their job with immediate effect and are generally not entitled to continued salary payments, a statutory transition payment or unemployment benefits. It is therefore essential for employers to carefully assess whether summary dismissal is the appropriate course of action.
In this case, the employer was successful, but that outcome was by no means guaranteed. The Court of Appeal expressly examined whether the investigation had been conducted carefully and promptly, whether the dismissal letter sufficiently specified the urgent reason for dismissal, and whether the employee’s personal circumstances, including his gambling addiction, had been adequately considered.
The employer was in a strong position on all these points, partly because the appropriate professionals had been involved in good time and the findings had been properly documented.
In a previous blog, we have also emphasised how important it is for an employer to seek sound advice (see, for example: Employer took the wrong approach with an employee who turned up for work drunk – Wieringa Advocaten and ‘Judged too hastily: how an alleged theft cost the employer dearly’ – Wieringa Advocaten). An unjustified summary dismissal can have serious consequences.
So please do feel free to get in touch with us. We’d be happy to work with you to find the right approach for your situation.
Want to stay up to date? Subscribe to our newsletter!