Theft by an employee as grounds for summary dismissal
Theft (diefstal) by an employee is explicitly mentioned in Article 7:678(2)(d) BW as an example of conduct that can constitute an urgent reason (dringende reden) justifying summary dismissal (ontslag op staande voet). However, not every instance of theft automatically justifies immediate dismissal. Dutch courts apply a holistic assessment: the nature and value of the stolen item, the position of trust held by the employee, the employee's length of service and track record, and any mitigating personal circumstances must all be weighed against the seriousness of the act.
The Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) has established that even theft of minor items can justify summary dismissal if the employment relationship is fundamentally based on trust - particularly for employees in positions such as cashier, security officer, or financial administrator. Conversely, courts have occasionally found summary dismissal disproportionate in cases involving small amounts where the employee had a long unblemished employment record and acted on impulse rather than with premeditation.
Evidence and investigation under Dutch law
Before dismissing for theft, the employer must ensure it has sufficient evidence. CCTV footage, witness statements, inventory discrepancies, and the employee's own admission are all relevant evidence. The employer must give the employee the opportunity to respond to the allegations (hoor en wederhoor) before dismissing. If the employer acts on suspicion alone without adequate evidence, the dismissal may be found unlawful even if the employee did in fact commit the theft.
Criminal proceedings alongside dismissal in the Netherlands
A dismissal for theft can run in parallel with criminal proceedings. The criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) is higher than the civil standard required for a valid summary dismissal. An employee can therefore be lawfully dismissed for theft on the civil standard even if the criminal proceedings result in an acquittal. However, a criminal acquittal may be a relevant factor that the civil court takes into account when assessing the proportionality of the dismissal.
Article 7:678(2)(d) BW expressly includes theft as an example of conduct that can constitute an urgent reason; the Hoge Raad has confirmed that even theft of items of minor value can justify summary dismissal where the employment relationship is fundamentally based on trust, such as for cashiers or financial administrators, while courts have occasionally found dismissal disproportionate where a long-serving employee acted on impulse and the amount was negligible. All circumstances must be weighed: the value and nature of the stolen item, the employee position of trust, their length of service and track record, and any mitigating personal circumstances. A parallel criminal acquittal does not preclude a valid civil-law summary dismissal, since the civil standard of proof is lower than the criminal standard, though a criminal acquittal may be a relevant factor in the proportionality assessment.
Article 7:678(2)(d) BW expressly includes theft as an example of conduct that can constitute an urgent reason; the Hoge Raad has confirmed that even theft of items of minor value can justify summary dismissal where the employment relationship is fundamentally based on trust, such as for cashiers or financial administrators, while courts have occasionally found dismissal disproportionate where a long-serving employee acted on impulse and the amount was negligible. All circumstances must be weighed: the value and nature of the stolen item, the employee position of trust, their length of service and track record, and any mitigating personal circumstances. A parallel criminal acquittal does not preclude a valid civil-law summary dismissal, since the civil standard of proof is lower than the criminal standard, though a criminal acquittal may be a relevant factor in the proportionality assessment.