This week we report on a court ruling in which a temporary worker was summarily dismissed for allegedly attempting to take a pair of boxer shorts from the company to which he had been seconded. On 15 September 2026, the Zeeland-West-Brabant District Court ruled that the temporary employment agency had not presented sufficient evidence to constitute just cause. The temporary worker was therefore awarded various forms of compensation.

What this case is about

A man had been working under a temporary employment contract since 17 June 2024 and had been seconded to a company, where he worked as a member of the inbound team. On 6 March 2026, his bag was searched by two security guards at the end of his shift. The bag contained, amongst other things, two pairs of Calvin Klein boxer shorts. That same day, the temporary employment agency dismissed him with immediate effect. According to the letter of dismissal, he had attempted to take goods belonging to the client. These were two pairs of boxer shorts from a new collection, which were not yet available to the general public.

According to the temporary employment agency, the company to which he was seconded has a policy prohibiting staff from carrying Calvin Klein or Tommy Hilfiger clothing whilst at work. If an employee leaves the premises wearing such clothing, the company assumes they are attempting to take company property, unless they can prove otherwise by presenting a proof of purchase. The man had not provided such proof.

The man denied that he was trying to take anything. According to him, the boxer shorts belonged to him. He had bought them a few months earlier at a company sample sale, where staff are sold clothing that is no longer available in-store. The boxer shorts were sold in sets of three, and he still had the third pair in his possession. He often carried spare boxer shorts in his bag so he could go to the gym after work. Furthermore, he could not take any clothing from his own department, as the pallets of clothing arrive there sealed and the seals are only removed in the Order Picking department.

The man asked the employment tribunal judge for fair compensation, a transition payment and compensation for wrongful dismissal, together with interest and collection costs.

Why did the summary dismissal not stand?

The employment tribunal judge emphasised that summary dismissal is a measure of last resort, given the significant financial consequences for the employee. There must be urgent cause, and the dismissal must be effected immediately. Urgent cause consists of acts, characteristics or conduct on the part of the employee which mean that the employer cannot reasonably be expected to allow the employment contract to continue. The temporary employment agency must therefore present sufficient facts and circumstances to support this.

According to the subdistrict court, it was incumbent upon the temporary employment agency to respond to the man’s arguments. The fact that the boxer shorts were packed in sets of three and that he still had the third pair in his possession, even though they were no longer on sale in the shop, is an indication that he already had three pairs of boxer shorts before he started work on 6 March 2026. This also supports his account that he had previously purchased them at a sample sale. The man had submitted photographs of the third pair of boxer shorts and receipts from sample sales in 2024 and 2025 on which boxer shorts were listed. The temporary employment agency did not put forward any facts or circumstances to refute this account.

The employment agency should also have responded regarding the sealed clothing. The man could not have accessed unsealed clothing in his department, as the seals are only removed in the Order Picking department. Here too, there was no adequate response. According to the magistrate’s court, this is a further indication that the boxer shorts belonged to the man himself.

The employment agency therefore failed to present sufficient evidence to show that the man attempted to remove goods on 6 March 2026. Nor does the company’s policy alter this. According to the man, the ban applied only during sample sales and was enforced leniently. However, even if the temporary employment agency’s version is accepted and the man did breach the ban, this does not justify the conclusion that he intended to take the clothing. The urgent cause has therefore not been established and the dismissal was not lawfully effected.

As the dismissal is not legally valid, it constitutes an irregular termination. The temporary employment agency must therefore pay compensation equal to the wages for the period during which the employment contract would have continued had the notice been given in accordance with the rules. Had notice been given in accordance with the statutory one-month notice period, the employment contract would have continued until 7 April 2026. The man calculated this, uncontested, at €2,989.13 gross. In addition, a transition payment of €1,554.33 gross is due, calculated on the basis of a gross monthly wage of €2,717.39.

As the dismissal is not legally valid, the temporary employment agency is, in principle, also liable to pay fair compensation. An invalid dismissal constitutes seriously culpable conduct on the part of the employer. The man claimed €12,500 gross. He stated, uncontested, that he had lost income and that the accusation of theft and his financial worries had caused him stress. He subsequently found other work at a lower wage of €1,650 gross per month.

The subdistrict court judge calculated the loss of earnings from 7 April 2026, as the period prior to that was covered by the compensation for wrongful dismissal. Up to 6 May 2026, the day on which he found other work, he lost €2,612.20 gross. Thereafter, he lost €1,067.39 gross per month, the difference between his old and new wages. It is plausible that, had he not been dismissed, the employment contract would have continued until the agreed end date of 26 July 2026. For the period from 6 May to 26 July 2026, the loss amounts to €2,857.85 gross. The total loss of income is therefore €5,470.05 gross.

Fair compensation is an estimate and must be proportionate to the seriously culpable conduct. The subdistrict court judge therefore rounds the amount up to €6,000 gross. This takes into account the fact that the man was affected by the accusation of theft and that a more critical approach on the part of the temporary employment agency would have been appropriate, which might have prevented the dismissal. The temporary employment agency must also pay statutory interest, €1,065.33 in extrajudicial debt collection costs and €1,102 in legal costs.

Read the full judgement here.

What lessons can be learnt from this?

This judgment shows that an employer who dismisses an employee with immediate effect must itself establish sufficient facts to substantiate the urgent cause. Relying on a presumption or the client’s policy was insufficient in this case, particularly as the employee had a well-substantiated account supported by photographs and receipts.

It is important for temporary employment agencies to bear in mind that, as employers, they must form their own judgement regarding any allegations made by the client. Furthermore, anyone who issues a summary dismissal that does not stand up to scrutiny runs the risk of having to pay multiple forms of compensation.

For employees, this case demonstrates that receipts and photographs proving that items belong to them can carry significant weight in legal proceedings. It is advisable to keep such documents.

Do you have any questions about summary dismissal, the consequences of an invalid dismissal, or your rights and obligations as a temporary employment agency or a temporary worker? Please feel free to contact our employment lawyers. We would be happy to advise you.

Diederick P. Luijckx, LL.B., lawyer