- Date:
- 23 May 2012
- By:
- Sabine Buhl Valentiner
An employee took a photocopier and was summarily dismissed. The summary dismissal was justified, according the Danish High Court
An employee took a photocopier and was summarily dismissed. The summary dismissal was justified, according the Danish High Court.
Employers are usually permitted to summarily dismiss employees for material breach of their contract. But does removing the employer’s property constitute material breach if the police do not see it as theft? That was the question in this case.
An employee had worked for the same company since 1994 doing handyman services. In the eyes of the employer, he was a loyal employee who always did his best to make an extra effort when needed. But in 2010 the employee removed one of the employer’s photocopiers together with his stepson. He thought the managing director had said that the photocopier was to be discarded.
When the manager found out that the employee had taken the photocopier, he immediately confronted the employee. According to the manager, the employee said that the stepson’s employer had paid about EUR 675 for the photocopier – something that the employee subsequently claimed he had never said. The manager felt that the trust had been breached and decided to summarily dismiss the employee. It later turned out that the employee had also taken an unused cartridge worth about EUR 310 together with the photocopier.
Not theft, but …
The matter was reported to the police, but the prosecution service dropped the case against the employee, saying there was no proof of theft. And since this was not a matter of theft, the employee thought, the summary dismissal was not justified. He therefore brought proceedings against the employer.
But to no avail. For the Danish Eastern High Court ruled that the employee was in material breach of his contract by removing the employer’s property. The summary dismissal was therefore justified.
Employers are usually permitted to summarily dismiss employees for material breach of their contract. But does removing the employer’s property constitute material breach if the police do not see it as theft? That was the question in this case.
An employee had worked for the same company since 1994 doing handyman services. In the eyes of the employer, he was a loyal employee who always did his best to make an extra effort when needed. But in 2010 the employee removed one of the employer’s photocopiers together with his stepson. He thought the managing director had said that the photocopier was to be discarded.
When the manager found out that the employee had taken the photocopier, he immediately confronted the employee. According to the manager, the employee said that the stepson’s employer had paid about EUR 675 for the photocopier – something that the employee subsequently claimed he had never said. The manager felt that the trust had been breached and decided to summarily dismiss the employee. It later turned out that the employee had also taken an unused cartridge worth about EUR 310 together with the photocopier.
Not theft, but …
The matter was reported to the police, but the prosecution service dropped the case against the employee, saying there was no proof of theft. And since this was not a matter of theft, the employee thought, the summary dismissal was not justified. He therefore brought proceedings against the employer.
But to no avail. For the Danish Eastern High Court ruled that the employee was in material breach of his contract by removing the employer’s property. The summary dismissal was therefore justified.
Norrbom Vinding notes
- that the ruling confirms that employers are justified in summarily dismissing employees for misappropriation of company property; and
- that the deciding factor in the assessment of the proportionality of the remedy is not whether the employee has committed a criminal offence, but whether the employee has acted contrary to his duty.
