Summary dismissal for theft: zero tolerance policy not sufficient

Not every summary dismissal for theft in The Netherlands will be upheld in court. Even if theft or embezzlement has been proven, the employer must take the employee’s personal circumstances into account. The employer must also prove that, if it invokes a zero-tolerance policy, this policy is adequately communicated to and enforced among the staff. If the employer fails to do so, it runs the risk of the court overturning the dismissal.

Taking food and drink from an airplane trolley

An employee was summarily dismissed by his employer for taking food and drink from an airplane trolley. The employer invoked its zero tolerance policy.

The Dutch subdistrict court ruled that the summary dismissal was not legally valid due to the employer’s failure to adequately communicate the zero-tolerance policy (and its consequences) and the employee’s personal circumstances. The summary dismissal of the employee by employer Gate Gourmet was therefore not legally valid. The subdistrict court focused in particular on the circumstances of the dismissal, the employer’s policy, and the employee’s personal situation. This ruling is important for both employers and employees, as it provides insight into the requirements for a legally valid summary dismissal.

Gist of the ruling: common practice

Although the employee acknowledged that he had taken food and drink from a used trolley, the court ruled that this was common practice at Gate Gourmet. It stated that this behavior had never been punished and was even implicitly permitted during the induction period. In addition, his medical condition (diabetes) played a role, as he sometimes needed to eat or drink something urgently.

Employer’s policy: not strictly adhered to and insufficiently communicated to staff

Gate Gourmet invokes a zero-tolerance policy, which is laid down in a Handbook and Code of Conduct. According to the employer, it is essential that this policy is strictly adhered to, partly because of the high safety standards at Schiphol Airport. However, the subdistrict court ruled that this policy had not been made sufficiently clear to staff. The Handbook was last distributed eight years ago, and the annual training does not clearly indicate that taking food from trolleys can lead to dismissal. No recent warnings or announcements about this policy have been submitted.

Personal circumstances of the employee

The employee is 63 years old, has diabetes and bladder cancer, and has been employed by Gate Gourmet for more than 27 years. His performance has never been questioned and he has received a certificate for 25 years of loyal service.

The dismissal has major financial consequences for him: he receives no wages and is not entitled to benefits. In addition, a report has been filed against him, which further complicates his position on the labor market.

Conclusion of the subdistrict court: summary dismissal is not legally valid

The subdistrict court concludes that the summary dismissal is not legally valid.

The zero-tolerance policy was insufficiently communicated and enforced, and the employee’s personal circumstances carry significant weight. Gate Gourmet was ordered to reinstate the employee and continue paying his salary.

Contact an employment lawyer in Amsterdam about dismissal and zero tolerance policy

Are you looking for commitment and direct, personal contact with an experienced specialist in employment law in Amsterdam? Call our specialized lawyers in employment law and dismissal law for questions and legal advice on zero tolerance policy in the event of dismissal.