Rotterdam District Court, 21 May 2026, case number 12058313 VZ VERZ 26-159
An employee whose performance had been under discussion for months is dismissed on the spot because he failed to send an email on time. Does that sound like an urgent cause? The Rotterdam District Court ruled that it did not. In a decision dated 21 May 2026, the summary dismissal was declared invalid and the employer was ordered to pay no less than € 27,225.65 gross in compensation.
What had happened?
The employee, who had worked as an administrator since 2023, was given a summary dismissal on 21 November 2025. According to the employer, the employee had placed an order too late that morning, allowing a client to file a damages claim. In the dismissal letter, this incident was presented as the final straw, following a longer period of negligence and repeated mistakes.
The employer referred to conversations that had taken place on 21 August 2025 and 16 October 2025, during which agreements had supposedly been made about the employee’s performance. Reference was also made to a settlement agreement that had been offered earlier in January 2025, but later withdrawn to give the employee another chance.
The subdistrict court’s judgment
The subdistrict court was clear: there was no urgent cause.
First, it was not established that the employee had received the unambiguous instruction to place the order in question before 9:00 a.m. The employee denied this, and the employer could not prove otherwise. At best for the employer, there had been a miscommunication — but that does not justify a summary dismissal.
Second, and this is the most legally relevant point: if there had indeed been underperformance, the employer should have informed the employee about it in good time and properly, and should have given him a genuine opportunity to improve. That had not happened. The reports from August and October 2025 mainly described team meetings involving several staff members, not a targeted improvement plan aimed at the employee personally. A formal performance improvement plan was entirely absent.
The court also pointed to a text message that the employer’s director sent at 10:51 a.m. that same morning — after the dismissal had already been given. In it, the director apologised for his emotional outburst, wrote that he “really liked” the employee and acknowledged that communication had been difficult. This message gave the court pause: if the employer himself already doubted the correctness of the dismissal, how could there have been an urgent cause?
Which payments were awarded?
The employee had deliberately chosen not to have the dismissal set aside — he did not want to return to the employer. Instead, he requested three payments:
Compensation for irregular notice: because the employer had terminated the employment contract without observing the applicable notice period, the employer owed the salary over that notice period. The court awarded € 6,071.72 gross.
Transition payment: as the employment contract had been ended by the employer and there was no seriously culpable conduct on the part of the employee, he was entitled to the statutory transition payment. This amount was fixed at € 4,153.93 gross.
Fair compensation: because the employer had acted in a seriously culpable manner by wrongly issuing the summary dismissal, the court also awarded fair compensation. The employee had requested six months’ salary, but the court limited this to four months’ salary (€ 17,000.00 gross). A factor here was that the employee himself realised the working relationship was strained, that he had not requested the dismissal be set aside, and that there was sufficient work available in his field.
In total, € 27,225.65 gross was awarded, plus statutory interest and legal costs of € 1,102.00.
What does this ruling teach you as an employer?
This ruling confirms a settled line in Dutch case law: summary dismissal is a measure of last resort. It is intended for situations in which an employer cannot reasonably be expected to continue the employment contract for even a single day longer. That requires more than a missed email and a history of vague dissatisfaction.
If you want to dismiss an employee for underperformance, you must build your case carefully. That means concrete feedback, written records of meetings, a formal improvement plan with measurable goals and a realistic timeframe, and warnings that make clear to the employee that his position is at stake. Only once all of that has taken place and the employee still fails to improve does the route to dismissal open up — and even then, rarely as a summary dismissal.
Do you have a conflict with an employee or are you unsure about the right approach to dismissal? The employment law specialists at Law & More are happy to assist you with tailored advice.
Frequently asked questions
When is a summary dismissal valid?
A summary dismissal is only valid if there is an urgent cause: conduct or a situation so serious that continuing the employment contract cannot reasonably be expected of the employer. Think of theft, fraud, serious threats or persistent refusal to work. Underperformance generally does not amount to an urgent cause, certainly not where the employer has not followed an improvement plan.
Must an employer always offer an improvement plan before dismissing an employee?
Where underperformance is the ground for dismissal, an improvement plan is required by law. The employer must inform the employee of his shortcomings in good time, set him concrete goals and give him sufficient time and resources to improve. Without such a process, the court will not uphold the dismissal.
What is fair compensation and when is it awarded?
Fair compensation is an additional form of damages that the court awards where the employer has acted in a seriously culpable manner. It goes beyond the transition payment and is determined on the basis of the circumstances of the case, including the length of service, the loss of income and the degree of culpability.
Can an employee choose between setting aside the dismissal and compensation?
Yes. An employee who disagrees with a summary dismissal may choose: he can ask the court to set the dismissal aside and return to work, or he can accept the dismissal and claim compensation for irregular notice, the transition payment and possibly fair compensation. In this case, the employee chose the latter option.
What is compensation for irregular notice?
If an employer terminates the employment contract without observing the applicable notice period — as with a wrongly issued summary dismissal — the employer owes the salary over the period that should have been observed had notice been given correctly. This is also referred to as fixed damages or compensation for irregular notice.
