{"id":30627,"date":"2015-03-17T10:31:05","date_gmt":"2015-03-17T10:31:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thelegalcompany.nl\/?p=30627"},"modified":"2026-09-02T17:57:37","modified_gmt":"2026-09-02T17:57:37","slug":"summary-dismissal-for-violating-the-code-of-conduct","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thelegalcompany.nl\/en\/summary-dismissal-for-violating-the-code-of-conduct\/","title":{"rendered":"Summary dismissal for violating the code of conduct"},"content":{"rendered":"

Summary dismissal is a remedy that cannot be deployed in every situation. Each file must be examined to determine whether summary dismissal may be resorted to. As a recent ruling shows, there are circumstances that can significantly strengthen your dismissal file. <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Case:
\n<\/strong>The employee is a window cleaner and has been employed by Imago since 1997. One of Imago’s most important clients is Sligro. Sligro had repeatedly voiced complaints to Imago about the cleaners’ phone use and smoking behaviour<\/strong> and threatened to terminate the assignment agreement. <\/strong>In connection with this, Imago had repeatedly pointed its employees to the phone and smoking policy. Despite these warnings, some employees did not properly comply with these rules of conduct. During a work visit (24 September 2012), the employer found the employee not at work, but on the phone in his car. This incident ultimately led to summary dismissal as of 28 September 2012. The subdistrict court ruled the summary dismissal lawful, but the employee appealed.<\/span><\/p>\n

The court of appeal rules as follows. In the court’s judgment – whatever the exact times at which the breaks were held (between 9:00 and 9:30 as Imago states, or between 9:30 and 9:45 as the employee states) and regardless of whether the break times were put in writing – it has been sufficiently established, on the basis of the witness statements of A (Sligro employee) and B (Imago employee), viewed in conjunction, that the employee used his mobile phone outside of the breaks.<\/span><\/p>\n

The dismissal letter shows, as also stated by Imago in its statement of defence and not disputed by the employee:<\/span><\/p>\n