Fight at Diks: why the court overturned summary dismissal

What has been determined on the camera images?

The decision describes a physical confrontation on May 6, 2026. The employee sought out the colleague, was pushed and then hit with a tablet. The colleague then hit back several times. The judge found that the employee could have walked away twice. Therefore, appealing to the situation as if he had no other choice was not convincing.

That starting point is important for a correct reading of the outcome. The termination of the employment contract was not annulled because the judge saw no violence or completely exonerated the employee. The behavior was central, but had to be assessed in conjunction with the other circumstances. A short summary in which only the illness or the long employment relationship remains misses that distinction.

When is immediate termination of the employment contract allowed for an urgent reason in the event of violence?

In the event of immediate termination of the employment contract for an urgent reason, the contract will terminate immediately. Illness is not a general exception that makes any immediate termination of the employment contract impossible for an urgent reason. This requires, among other things, an urgent reason and the employer must act expeditiously and communicate the reason without delay. Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment / Ondernemersplein - immediate termination of the employment contract mentions abuse, threats and endangering colleagues as behavior that can give rise to such a reason. The assessment remains dependent on the specific case.

The judge weighs the nature and seriousness of the behavior together with, for example, length of service, previous incidents, personal circumstances and consequences. This does not mean that every employer must first warn before violence can lead to termination of the employment contract. Our explanation of immediate termination of employment contract for cause covers the conditions and the rapid response that may be required from the employee.

Why was this sanction too severe according to the judge?

According to the judge's principle, the employee had an otherwise flawless employment relationship of 21 years. He was 63 years old and was in a difficult labor market position, partly due to his health. In addition, he had stated that he had had a blackout before the termination of the employment contract. It did not appear that the employer had taken that circumstance into account. Moreover, the employer had not sufficiently explained the difference with the sanction for the other colleague.

None of these circumstances in itself constitutes a general exemption from rules of conduct. The court decision revolves around the combination. An employee with a long employment relationship can still be legally summarily dismissed. And the same incident can have a different outcome for two employees if their roles and circumstances differ. The employer must be able to explain these differences if they have significance for the sanction.

What significance did the blackout and the later diagnosis have?

After the incident, the employee was diagnosed with a form of blood cancer. His GP wrote that his physical condition could explain symptoms and possibly also the reported blackout. The employee had said that he could no longer recall exactly how the incident unfolded. The court did not establish that the illness medically caused the violence. It did take the undisputed blackout into account when assessing culpability and the sanction.

Therefore, use medical information precisely. A possible explanation is something other than an established diagnosis of the time of the behavior. Anyone who has complaints after an incident can discuss them with their own doctor and have it examined for the legal assessment to determine which information is relevant. Do not enter a medical context yourself to explain a termination of the employment contract. The full context, including behavior before and during the incident, remains important.

Why did the warning to the colleague matter?

The other employee received an official warning. According to the judge, this colleague could also have de-escalated and had also used violence. The employer did not make it sufficiently clear why a warning for one employee was sufficient and immediate termination of the employment contract for the other was necessary. The judge found that the mere observation of who struck first was not sufficient in this context.

This is not a rule that everyone should receive the same sanction after a conflict. Roles, previous warnings and personal circumstances may vary. For your own file, the actual conduct and the motivation for the sanctions are therefore more important than the general accusation that a colleague gets away with it. Ask for the relevant reason for the distinction without unnecessarily distributing personnel data of others.

What happened to the employer's wages and claim?

Because the termination of the employment contract was annulled, the employment contract continued to exist. The judge ordered Diks to pay the monthly salary before tax deduction of €3,046.02 excluding emoluments from May 16, 2026 until the agreement was legally terminated. Statutory interest and a moderate statutory increase of up to a maximum of 10% were allocated on the overdue payments.

The employer, in turn, asked for almost €5,000 liquidated damages. That claim was rejected because the summary dismissal was annulled. The employer was also ordered to pay legal costs. This is about what the decision determines; payment and subsequent developments were not determined during the source check. checking the final statement helps to distinguish between wages, compensation and other items.

Why did the conditional request not still lead to termination of the employment contract by the judge?

Diks had asked to terminate the contract if summary dismissal would not occur. The judge also found insufficient grounds for this. The blackout had an impact on the assessment of culpability. According to the judge, there was no sufficient substantiation for a permanently disturbed relationship; the other colleague no longer worked at Diks. It was also not sufficiently explained why another location did not offer an option.

However, annulment of immediate termination of the employment contract for an urgent reason does not mean in every case that a conditional request to the court to terminate the employment contract also fails. UWV - termination of the employment contract for personal reasons via the subdistrict court describes the individual personal grounds for dismissal. In order to respond, it may therefore be necessary to assess a later request and the redeployment options offered in addition to the dismissal letter. Each route has its own conditions.

Which documents should you keep immediately after an incident?

Save the resignation letter, the date and manner of receipt, invitations for interviews, your own response and relevant work rules. Write a factual timeline as quickly as possible: who was present, what happened and what images or witnesses can confirm this? Request the storage of camera images in a timely and targeted manner; do not take data from security systems yourself without authorization.

Also record previous warnings, good reviews and the duration of your employment relationship. If health is relevant, discuss appropriate medical information with an advisor and treat it confidentially. Do not change messages afterwards and approach witnesses without applying pressure. The aim is for a lawyer to be able to weigh the conduct, the employer's response and the consequences on the basis of verifiable data.

Step-by-step plan: do not wait for an internal investigation or apology interview

Step 1: have the resignation letter and discharge date assessed immediately. Step 2: Discuss whether you want to have the termination of the employment contract quashed or take another appropriate route. Step 3: Gather evidence and arrange how income and accessibility will be treated in the short term. Case law - termination of the employment contract and proceedings before the subdistrict court specifies a period of two calendar months after the dismissal date for challenging summary dismissal. A protest letter or internal conversation is not sufficient for this.

An advisor can determine which request is appropriate and which additional claims or terms apply. Read appeal after a dismissal decision if there is already a court decision. Ask explicitly who will take care of the submission. The fact that you still request information or camera images is no reason to let the judicial period pass unnoticed.

Example: why excuses and defenses can coexist

Illustrative example: an employee acknowledges that he pushed a colleague and apologizes, but disputes that immediate termination of the employment contract is justified in the circumstances. A careful response can then distinguish both points: responsibility for the behavior and the question of whether the most severe labor law sanction is appropriate. An incorrect denial can actually complicate the evidentiary position.

The Diks decision does not provide a safe threshold for future violence. A different outcome depends on the conduct, evidence, personal circumstances and reasons given for the sanction; a long period of service does not automatically prevent summary dismissal. Use the general dismissal plan to prepare and the workplace dispute guide to explore ways to avoid escalation. The status of any appeal in this specific case remains uncertain on the sources checked.

Practical checklist

• Keep the resignation letter and immediately note the date of discharge and date of receipt.
• Create a factual timeline and specifically ask for the retention of relevant camera images.
• Collect work rules, previous reviews and the written responses to the incident.
• Have the judicial period of two months monitored immediately.
• Also discuss a conditional request to the judge to terminate the employment contract, wages and any counterclaims.