Charlotte Urlus, 7 November 2025

Employer Acted Incorrectly in Dismissing Employee Who Showed Up to Work Drunk

In September 2024, an employer decided enough was enough. An employee had once again shown up to work under the influence of alcohol — and it wasn’t the first time. The signs were clear: the smell of alcohol, arriving late, calling in sick at critical moments, and complaints from colleagues. Despite previous conversations, warnings, and even a support program funded by the employer, the behavior persisted. When it became evident that the employee had consumed alcohol before his shift and was intoxicated at work, the employer took action and dismissed him on the spot.

The employee disagreed with the summary dismissal and took the matter to the subdistrict court. The court ruled in favor of the employer, stating the dismissal was legally valid. However, the employee appealed to the Court of Appeal (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2025:6166), arguing the dismissal was unjust and that he should be reinstated. The Court of Appeal sided with the employee.

Employer didn’t know, but alcohol addiction played a role anyway

When assessing whether there is an urgent reason for dismissal, the employee’s personal circumstances must be considered — including illness. In this case, the employee stated that he was suffering from alcohol addiction at the time of dismissal. Although the employer was unaware of this, the Court held that all relevant circumstances must be taken into account, even those unknown to the employer at the time.

The Court found sufficient evidence that the employee was indeed struggling with alcohol addiction, which qualifies as an illness. He had sought help before the dismissal and was admitted for intensive treatment shortly afterward. The Dutch Employee Insurance Agency (UWV) also confirmed that the employee was unfit for work at the time of dismissal.

Moreover, the Court noted that the employer likely knew more than it claimed. In a prior conversation, the employer had acknowledged that alcohol was not a solution to the employee’s problems. The incidents — such as consistently arriving late, smelling of alcohol, and a deteriorating appearance — closely matched the characteristics of addiction as described in the STECR guideline “Addiction and Work.”

Although the legal prohibition on dismissal during illness generally does not apply to summary dismissal, illness remains a significant factor that must be considered when determining whether there is an urgent reason for dismissal.

Because addiction is often denied, employers need to be extra vigilant

The Court ruled that the employer should have suspected that more was going on than a one-off alcohol issue. Therefore, a higher level of care was expected. While the Court acknowledged the employer’s efforts and intentions to act responsibly, it concluded that the employer should have been more critical.

The Court dismissed the argument that the employee should have disclosed his addiction. It is widely known that individuals with alcohol problems often deny their condition, do not perceive it as problematic, and feel ashamed to talk about it. The employee also indicated that he felt pressured to return to work fully, especially since the employer had made it clear that its patience and efforts were not unlimited — and that it expected results in return.

The Court concluded that the employee’s behavior on September 16, 2024, was a result of illness. This means the legal prohibition on dismissal during illness applied to the termination of the employment contract. While this prohibition does not typically apply to summary dismissal, illness is still a relevant factor that must be considered when assessing whether the dismissal was justified.

The Court ruled that the summary dismissal must be annulled andthe employment contract was reinstated as of September 19, 2024. The employer is required to pay the employee’s salary from that date, including statutory increases and interest. Since the employee is ill, he does not need to return to work immediately. The employer must howevere actively support a careful reintegration process.

What can you learn from this?

The law imposes strict requirements for the validity of summary dismissal. The consequences for the employee are severe. There is animmediate loss of employment, and typically no entitlement to salary, transition compensation, or unemployment benefits. That’s why it’s crucial for employers to carefully assess whether summary dismissal is truly appropriate. Extra vigilance is required in cases involving alcohol-related issues.

In a previous blog (“Judged Too Quickly: How a Suspected Theft Cost the Employer Dearly – Wieringa Advocaten“), we already emphasized the importance of seeking proper legal advice. An unjustified summary dismissal can have serious consequences.

Feel free to contact us. We’re happy to help you determine the right approach for your situation.