Dismissal for lying about working from home

The employee worked partly from home. Within the organisation, employees must indicate daily via a digital system where they are working. This registration is automatically linked to travel expense reimbursements. In addition, the employer has access and login data that can be used to check the stated workplace.

Plausible

An internal investigation showed that the employee had indicated on 21 working days that he was in the office, while no confirmation could be found in the access and login data. The employee was also unable to give a consistent explanation for this and failed to make it plausible that he had actually been present in the office.

The subdistrict court ruled that there was an urgent reason for summary dismissal. Several factors played an important role:

• The incorrect registrations did not occur incidentally, but 21 times in three months.
• The employee was aware that he had to register his location correctly.
• The registration affected the automatic payment of travel expenses.
• The employee gave varying and insufficiently credible explanations.
• The employer was entitled to rely on accurate and honest registration of attendance, especially within an organisation where working from home is facilitated.
• A well-documented file by the employer, combined with hearing both sides, significantly increased the chances of the summary dismissal being upheld by the court.

It is notable that the judge emphasised that a financial motive is not necessary. Even if financial gain was not the employee’s intention, deliberately providing incorrect information can still be enough to seriously damage the employer’s trust and therefore the employment relationship.

Legal costs

Because the dismissal was lawful, the employee was not entitled to fair compensation, transitional compensation or compensation for irregular termination. Moreover, the employee was ordered by the court to pay fixed damages of more than € 6,250 gross to the employer, plus statutory interest. He also had to pay the legal costs.

Careful and swift investigation remains essential

The judgment shows that employers must act carefully before proceeding to summary dismissal. Bunq discovered a discrepancy on 13 March, then launched an investigation, confronted the employee with its findings and gave him the opportunity to explain. Only then did the dismissal follow on 20 March.

According to the court, the employer therefore acted sufficiently swiftly and carefully. This underlines that “without delay” does not mean that an employer must dismiss immediately once a suspicion arises. An investigation may first take place, provided it is carried out swiftly.

Freedom

Before summarily dismissing an employee, it is therefore crucial to conduct careful factual investigations, secure evidence and give the employee the opportunity to present his side of the story. The judgment also confirms that integrity and reliability carry significant weight, especially in a working environment where employees are given a great deal of freedom to organise their own workplace and working hours. Deliberately registering attendance incorrectly can lead to an irreparable breach of trust and therefore to a lawful summary dismissal.

More information

Do you have any questions following this blog or need legal advice? Please feel free to contact us.

Rotterdam District Court, 4 december 2025, ECLI (verkort): 15747

This article was previously published in Management Rendement.