“Zero tolerance” on paper, but not in practice? Then it doesn't help you.

Zeeland-West-Brabant District Court (sitting in Middelburg), July 15, 2026, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2026:6554. A driving instructor was summarily dismissed while she was still in the process of returning to work. The employer suspected that she had used the driving school car for personal purposes and bluntly labeled this “theft and fraud.” The subdistrict court judge swiftly dismissed this claim: part of the evidence (gas purchases made during a period when the employee did not even have the car yet) simply did not add up, and the employer had also failed to take into account the additional commuting mileage during her reintegration period.

But the most important point was something else: even if there had been personal use, that alone was not grounds for immediate dismissal. The employment contract actually specified a less severe penalty for such a violation (a fine), and during the hearing, the employer also admitted that a strict zero-tolerance policy was not being enforced at all—colleagues sometimes used the driving school cars for personal purposes without facing any consequences. And because the termination letter referred only to the private use, the employer was not permitted during the hearing to bring up older incidents as an “additional” argument.

The cost was high: fair compensation of €68,037.67 gross, compensation for improper termination, the transition allowance, and—pursuant to Article 7:653(4) of the Dutch Civil Code—waiver of the non-compete and non-solicitation clauses.

If, as an employer, you have a written conduct or disciplinary policy, make sure you actually apply it as written. If you do not do so consistently, you cannot simply rely on it in a termination case. And base your termination letter entirely on the facts you actually intend to use—arguments you come up with later no longer count. Furthermore, facts that come to light later generally cannot be taken into account in a summary dismissal, which is why a thorough investigation prior to the summary dismissal is necessary.