13 August 2025
In many cases, a summary dismissal does not meet the strict legal standard of the existence of an urgent reason. This was also the case in a recent case brought before the court.
To start with, summary dismissal has serious consequences for an employee. Not only is the employment contract terminated with immediate effect, but the employee also loses their right to receive unemployment benefits and is not entitled to the statutory severance payment. Due to these consequences, strict requirements apply to a valid summary dismissal. First and foremost, there must be an urgent reason for such a dismissal. Think of, for example, an employee refusing to work or stealing company property. In addition, the dismissal must be given and communicated without delay. This means that the employer must act promptly if it considers the conduct of the employee a ground for summary dismissal.
In a recent case at the cantonal court, an employee was accused of inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues. After working hours, he had drinks with two colleagues at the company bar. When one colleague left, he continued drinking with the other. The next day, the employee sent a message via WhatsApp to the remaining colleague, offering an apology for his behaviour the previous evening.
A few days later, both colleagues reported the behaviour to the company’s confidential advisor. After a conversation with all parties involved, the employee was given summary dismissal. The dismissal letter stated that the reports of the employee’s behaviour, along with previous inappropriate conduct, formed the basis for the decision. The employer also stated in the letter that earlier disciplinary measures had failed to improve the conduct of the employee. In other words, the employee had been warned before for his behaviour.
The employee argued that he had been wrongfully dismissed and brought his claim before the court, requesting a compensation. The judge ruled that the employer had failed to carry out a sufficiently thorough investigation. It appeared that the employer had decided to dismiss the employee almost immediately after receiving the complaints from the employees. Before speaking to all parties, the employer should have first informed the employee of the allegations and given him the opportunity to respond.
The court also found that the employer had assumed that the complaints of the employees about the dismissed employee to be accurate without any further investigation. It was not established that the employee had forced himself upon his colleague. At least, the employer failed to substantiate this. As the dismissal had not been validly given, the court awarded the employee both the statutory severance payment and an additional compensation of €10.000, due to the wrongful dismissal.
Cantonal Court of North Holland (Haarlem location), 6 February 2025, ECLI (abbreviated): 1823
Do you have questions about this article or are you seeking legal advice? Please feel free to contact us.
