A managing director of an international company accidentally turns on his camera during a Teams meeting. He can be seen lighting up a joint. His employer invokes the zero tolerance policy in the company rules and summarily dismisses him. How does the judge rule on this?

What were the facts?

This case involves a managing director at Pentagon, a freight transport company. The employee in question has been working for the company since 1 May 2023, on a permanent contract.

Pentagon's staff regulations contain house rules. These clearly state that there is a zero tolerance policy regarding alcohol and/or drugs. This put the managing director in considerable trouble during an online Teams meeting between himself and about four colleagues. The meeting started at 4.28pm and ended around 5.08pm. The managing director initially participated in the meeting from his car, as he was on his way home from Schiphol Airport. Back home, he accidentally, in the shed of his house, turned on the camera of his phone (with which he was - still - participating in the meeting). As a result, other participants in the meeting could see the managing director lighting up a joint in his shed. Two colleagues then asked him to turn off his camera. The managing director then did just that. Soon after, the meeting was closed.

The managing director was then addressed about his behaviour. Although he initially tried to argue that it was not a joint but a cigar, he ultimately admitted that it was indeed a joint. Following this, the managing director was summarily dismissed.

The managing director went to court and argued that the summary dismissal was not legally valid. In doing so, he argued that he used cannibis for medical reasons, that his employer knew this and, moreover, that his working hours had already expired.

What did the court decide?

According to the subdistrict court, the dismissal was legally valid: there was an urgent cause for summary dismissal. After all, the Teams meeting had not yet ended when the managing director lit up a joint, and the employer has a zero tolerance policy, of which the managing director was aware. There was also no evidence that the cannabis was prescribed by a doctor or that Pentagon knew about medicinal cannabis use.

Moreover, the subdistrict court weighed in that the employee is managing director and that this was an international, internal Teams meeting with several key figures from the organisation, during which an important subject was discussed. The employee did not show sufficient awareness of his senior position within Pentagon and thus his role model role within the organisation, and did not show sufficient respect for the colleagues who also participated in the meeting.

You can read this ruling here.

Do you also have questions about summary dismissal, drug or alcohol use in the workplace, staff regulations or other employment law issues? SPEE advocaten & mediation is happy to help you.