Practice areas: Employment Law
A security guard is caught stealing on Friday. His employer seeks legal advice and, after the weekend, issues a summary dismissal. Sounds logical, does not it? Yet the subdistrict court ruled otherwise in a recent judgment (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2026:8543): the dismissal was too late. In this blog, we discuss what went wrong and why even a few hours can be fatal.
Conditions for summary dismissal
Summary dismissal is the most severe sanction under employment law. To be legally valid, three conditions must be met (Section 7:677 of the Dutch Civil Code):
1. There must be a compelling reason;
2. The dismissal must be given immediately;
3. The urgent reason must be communicated to the employee immediately.
Theft is a classic example of an urgent reason: the law explicitly states that an urgent reason may exist where the employee is guilty of theft or other criminal offences.
The requirement of immediacy deserves special attention. The Supreme Court (ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1668) has ruled that the decisive factor is the time at which the urgent cause came to the attention of the person authorised to grant the dismissal. Whilst an employer may take some time to conduct an investigation or seek legal advice, they must act promptly.
What happened?
The employee in this case had been working as a security guard for a security company (TCS) since 2018. On Friday 12 December 2025, TCS received a report from DHL that the employee was suspected of stealing cigarettes from a colleague. The director of TCS went to the site, viewed CCTV footage and confronted the employee with it that same afternoon. The employee immediately admitted to the theft.
The director wanted to seek legal advice but was unable to reach his solicitor that Friday. The employee was not suspended, not placed on leave, and was not required to hand in his access pass. The employee was sent home.
On Monday, the employee simply turned up for work as usual for his afternoon shift. That Monday morning at around 11:00, the director finally spoke to his lawyer, who advised proceeding with summary dismissal. It then took until 15:08 – more than four hours later – before the employee was actually dismissed.
The subdistrict court’s ruling
The subdistrict court was clear: the summary dismissal should have been issued earlier. Preferably on Friday, but in any case no later than immediately after the advice was given on Monday morning. The fact that the employer was waiting for documents from his solicitor – including a draft settlement agreement – was insufficient justification. After all, the director had already received the advice at 11:00 am that summary dismissal was justified. He should have acted immediately at that point.
The subdistrict court also took into account that the employer had not taken the measures one would expect in such a serious case: no suspension, no removal from active duty and no blocking of the access pass. The employee was able to carry on working on Monday as if nothing had happened. This is inconsistent with the employer’s position that the incident was so serious that dismissal was the only option.
The summary dismissal was therefore not given immediately and was thus not legally valid.
Serious culpable conduct and fixed compensation
Although the dismissal was not legally valid, the theft naturally remained a fact. The subdistrict court ruled that the employee had acted in a seriously culpable manner. It is precisely of a security guard that one may expect that he will not be guilty of theft. The employee was therefore not entitled to a transition payment.
As the summary dismissal was not legally valid, the termination was irregular: TCS had not observed the notice period. The employee was therefore entitled to the fixed compensation under Section 7:672(11) of the Dutch Civil Code. This amounted to two months’ salary: over €8,000 gross.
Had the employer acted four hours earlier, immediately after receiving the telephone advice at 11:00, these costs would in all likelihood have been avoided.
The lesson for employers
This ruling clearly illustrates how strict the requirements are for summary dismissal. If an employer considers an employee’s conduct so serious that dismissal is the only option, they must act accordingly. This means:
Because even a few hours can be fatal.
In conclusion
Do you have any questions about summary dismissal or would you like to know how best to proceed as an employer? Please feel free to contact us. We would be happy to help.
Want to stay up to date? Subscribe to our newsletter!