An employer who terminates the employment contract and only then issues warnings is reversing the order of events. On 30 April 2026, the subdistrict court judge at the Rotterdam District Court quashed the termination of 18 September 2025, which had been based on frequent late arrivals. The employee had never been given a genuine opportunity to improve and had not consented to the termination, which is why the conditions for a legally valid summary dismissal had not been met. Furthermore, the question arises as to whether the fact that the employer had since been declared bankrupt precludes a substantive assessment.<\/p>\n
What was the situation in this case?<\/strong><\/p>\n A driver had been working for his employer since 6 January 2025. On 18 September 2025, he was summarily dismissed on the grounds of frequent tardiness. The driver did not agree with this dismissal and applied to the subdistrict court to have the dismissal set aside. During the proceedings, on 24 March 2026, the employer was declared bankrupt. The liquidator stated that the employer could put forward a defence without prejudice to the estate. The employer ultimately did not appear at the hearing.<\/p>\n The employee stated that he had an interest in a substantive ruling regarding his entitlement to benefits. The subdistrict court judge ruled that the bankruptcy did not suspend the proceedings and ruled on the application.<\/p>\n The subdistrict court judge\u2019s considerations and ruling<\/strong><\/p>\n The subdistrict court judge assessed whether the conditions for a legally valid summary dismissal had been met, as that is what the termination in question effectively amounted to. Those conditions are: an urgent reason, immediate termination and immediate notification of the reason. In this case, things went wrong on all fronts.<\/p>\n After 12 September 2025, the driver had not been given any further work by the employer and was at home. On 18 September 2025, the employer messaged him at 14:15 and 14:20 via WhatsApp to say that they had no work for him for the time being and that this meant he had been dismissed. Just over half an hour later \u2013 at 14:55 and 14:57 \u2013 the employer sent two official warnings regarding his tardiness, followed by a letter of dismissal at 15:05.<\/p>\n The magistrate\u2019s court ruled that, even if the lateness in itself could justify dismissal, the driver was never given a genuine opportunity to improve. That is precisely the purpose of an official warning: to give the employee the opportunity to amend their behaviour before more far-reaching measures are taken. In this case, the warnings were sent after the dismissal had already been notified. For that reason alone, there were no grounds for dismissal on urgent grounds.<\/p>\n Furthermore, there was no immediate termination. The employer should have dismissed the driver as soon as it established that he had arrived late again despite the warnings. Instead, the driver was at home \u2013 because the employer had no work for him \u2013 and was only dismissed days later. The subdistrict court annulled the summary dismissal.<\/p>\n