High Threshold for Instant Dismissal in Case of Breach of Reporting Duty

High Threshold for Instant Dismissal in Case of Breach of Reporting Duty

In a recent ruling by the District Court of Gelderland (ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2025:7249), the summary dismissal of a teacher was at issue. She had failed to report that a colleague — with whom she herself had previously been in a relationship — had begun an intimate relationship with her underage daughter, who was also a student at the same school. The school considered this a flagrant breach of its code of conduct and dismissed her on the spot. The subdistrict court disagreed.

Reporting Duty

The court emphasized that teachers are indeed expected to take action as soon as it becomes clear that a colleague is engaged in a relationship with a (minor) student. This directly affects the duty to ensure a safe learning environment. According to the court, it was irrelevant whether this obligation was explicitly included in the school’s code of conduct or in the reporting protocol for domestic violence and child abuse, the teacher should have been aware of this duty regardless.

No Urgent Cause

Nevertheless, in the specific circumstances of this case, the breach of the reporting duty did not amount to a legally valid urgent reason for instant dismissal. The court placed great weight on the teacher’s personal circumstances: her daughter was in an extremely fragile psychological condition and had made two suicide attempts around the time the relationship came to light. The teacher herself was in a crisis situation in which her role as a mother understandably took precedence. Under those circumstances, it could not reasonably be expected of her to make a formal report immediately. Moreover, she had urged her colleague to come forward to the school management, which ultimately brought the issue to light.

The accusation that she had failed to report her own earlier relationship with the same colleague also did not justify instant dismissal. Although the school’s code of conduct required such disclosure, the code did not specify any sanctions. The court found that dismissal on the spot was a disproportionate reaction — the employer could have chosen a less severe measure.

Compensation

As a result, the instant dismissal was deemed unlawful. Since the teacher had already accepted the termination, the court turned to the question of what compensation she was entitled to. Although she was, in principle, entitled to fair compensation for wrongful dismissal, the court set this at nil. It reasoned that the circumstances leading to the dismissal largely arose from the teacher’s personal situation, and her own actions and omissions had significantly contributed to the situation. Moreover, she had already found new employment, which limited her financial loss. Given these factors, the court found it unreasonable to award any additional compensation beyond the statutory entitlements.

The court did, however, grant the statutory transition allowance and fixed compensation for irregular termination. It ruled that her conduct did not amount to “gross misconduct.” Although she had breached her duty to report, this was not serious enough to justify denial of the transition payment.

Conclusion

This ruling illustrates that employers must carefully assess whether a breach of a code of conduct truly warrants instant dismissal. It also confirms that the right to a transition payment is not easily lost: only in cases of serious culpable behavior can it be withheld. In this case, the employee’s personal tragedy outweighed the formal breach of the reporting duty.