Dismissed for theft at work: identify the precise allegation

Dismissed for theft at work: identify the precise allegation

A theft allegation can immediately affect your job and pay, but the word “theft” does not prove that dismissal is valid. Immediately ask which conduct, date and property are meant and record your factual response. At the same time, obtain help with the short court deadline. Do not wait for a police investigation, a complete personnel file or a reply to your protest before assessing the necessary proceedings.

Separate the conduct, any permission and the dismissal procedure.

Do not await a criminal conviction before acting under employment law.

A protest letter does not replace a timely petition to the subdistrict court.

Turn the allegation into facts that can be checked

Request the dismissal letter and record precisely what was communicated at the dismissal meeting. Does the allegation concern cash, a product, fuel-card use, a till transaction or access to goods? Note the date, time, place and alleged amount. Ask whether multiple acts together, or each independently, are relied on as grounds. This lets you answer the actual allegation rather than only its serious label.

Distinguish facts you acknowledge from the conclusion you dispute. Taking an item may be undisputed while permission or its destination is contested. Do not invent an alternative account or alter old messages. A short, accurate factual statement is more useful than a blanket denial later undermined by an undisputed detail.

Permission, workplace arrangements and context can matter

Collect the instructions applicable to the act: staff rules, till procedure, loan arrangement or a manager’s message. Describe who authorised what and when. An established practice may be relevant, but “everyone did it” does not itself prove permission for you. Identify witnesses who directly heard the arrangement or actually saw the conduct.

Even a small amount does not automatically invalidate dismissal; role, trust, policies, earlier events and personal circumstances can matter. Conversely, seriousness is not established merely because the employer cites zero tolerance. Have your [general summary-dismissal position](guide:ontslag-op-staande-voet) assessed alongside the specific facts. Keep the policy version and information about how it was communicated to you.

Assess evidence without waiting for a criminal case

Where the communicated urgent ground is disputed, the employer must state and, if necessary, prove it. Ask which video segments, till records or statements support the allegation. Footage needs context: what precedes it, which time record applies and who had access? Through your adviser, request preservation of relevant material where needed. Do not try to re-enter blocked systems or copy entire customer databases.

Employment proceedings do not automatically duplicate a criminal case. In 2016 the Dutch Supreme Court held that using a criminal-law term in the dismissal letter does not itself mean every element of the criminal offence must be proved. The communicated ground is also interpreted in context. Do not rely on “no conviction, therefore no dismissal”. If police contact you, seek appropriate legal assistance and coordinate factual information carefully; criminal developments do not replace the employment-law deadline.

Prepare a timeline of knowledge, investigation and dismissal too

Record not only when the incident happened but who discovered it when, what questions were asked and when dismissal was communicated. Investigation can require time, but the employer must act promptly. The elapsed time therefore needs explanation; an investigation exceeding one day is not automatically too late. Keep suspension notices and invitations with their receipt dates.

Ask whether you have already been dismissed or are temporarily suspended during investigation. Those situations have different consequences. Tell your adviser which documents you signed and whether you merely acknowledged receipt or also made a statement. Request correction if meeting minutes misrepresent your reply and retain both versions. Do not sign a debt acknowledgment, repayment arrangement or resignation merely to end the meeting quickly.

Choose the petition on time and address income separately

For challenging a terminated employment contract, the judiciary generally identifies two months after termination; the petition must reach the court on time. A letter to HR, notification to an insurer or negotiations do not replace filing. Discuss whether you want annulment or financial resolution and what additional requests are needed. A transition-payment-only claim has another deadline; do not let it obscure the dismissal deadline.

With immediate wage loss, discuss the financial interim period too. A [wage claim](guide:loonvordering), availability for work and possible interim relief require coordination. Do not enter the workplace uninvited. Promptly seek information about [unemployment benefit](guide:ww) and give accurate facts: UWV investigates culpable unemployment and pending litigation guarantees no benefit. Keep every decision so the applicable further deadline can be monitored.

Have damages claims and any settlement checked separately

Alongside dismissal, the employer may demand money. Ask whether this is repayment for property, actual damage, statutory compensation or a penalty, and have the basis and calculation separated. These are not automatically identical amounts. Any alleged set-off against final pay also needs assessment. A disputed theft allegation does not automatically make every deduction lawful.

Take your timeline and documents using the [case-file builder](tool:dossier-builder) and use [finding a lawyer](tool:advocaat-zoeken) to prepare assistance with evidence and deadlines. Any settlement must specify the fate of the earlier dismissal, wages, allegation, claims and pending proceedings. Revised dismissal wording does not bind UWV or police. Agree costs and request a written explanation of the principal risks before accepting.

Fictional example: taking a product after an unclear arrangement

A shop employee is accused of theft after taking a damaged product. The employee says a manager had previously allowed certain written-off goods to be taken. The employee collects the relevant message, checks which product category and date permission covered and identifies who heard the discussion. An adviser compares this with the dismissal ground, policy and camera records while also monitoring the petition. There is no predetermined outcome: permission may have been narrower, evidence may differ or the procedure may be defective. The example identifies facts needing investigation, rather than suggesting damaged or inexpensive items may safely be taken.

Dismissal letter, meeting record and exact communicated ground.

Property, date, amount and alleged act.

Permission messages, policies and directly involved witnesses.

Investigation timeline and request to preserve relevant evidence.

Contract, pay documents and everything signed.

Internal filing decision date and separate income or damages issues.

Must the employer first report it to police?

Do not assume a police report or criminal conviction is required before employment consequences can follow. The actual urgent ground and circumstances need assessment. Do not await police action before your own proceedings.

Is dismissal impossible for a small amount?

No. Value is one circumstance. Trust, role, rules and other facts can also matter. Neither a low amount nor zero tolerance produces an automatic result.

Must I sign the employer’s statement?

Read exactly what you confirm and request a copy and advice if unclear. Acknowledging receipt, admitting facts and accepting debt or departure terms are different acts. Record any misrepresentation of your replies.

Do I automatically lose the transition payment?

Not every summary dismissal automatically excludes it. Serious culpable conduct requires a separate assessment. Have any entitlement and its deadline considered separately.

Sources and editorial notes
Sources current as of: October 22, 2026
1. Dutch Supreme Court — ECLI:NL:HR:2016:290
Publisher: Rechtspraak
https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2016:290
2. Dutch judiciary — employee dismissal proceedings
Publisher: Rechtspraak
https://www.rechtspraak.nl/onderwerpen/ontslag/verzoekschriftprocedure-werknemer
3. Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs — summary dismissal
Publisher: Ondernemersplein · Overheid.nl
https://ondernemersplein.overheid.nl/personeel/ontslaan/ontslag-op-staande-voet/
4. UWV — unemployment benefit after dismissal
Publisher: UWV
https://www.uwv.nl/nl/ww/ww-na-ontslag
The source publications are in Dutch. All language editions cover Dutch law.