The Hague District Court, 7 July 2026, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2026:18633
Facts
The employee had been employed by EControls Europe as Finance and IT manager since 2022. Because of his partner’s illness and caring for their young children, the employee worked partly from home with the employer’s permission.
In February 2026, the employer received messages from the accountant and Statistics Netherlands (CBS) about information still to be submitted. This raised doubts for the employer as to whether the employee was actually working his agreed hours.
Without first discussing this with the employee, the employer covertly examined his login and logout data on the company network over a period of about a month. According to the employer, this showed that the employee had worked at least 29 hours less than agreed (time theft).
During a meeting on 23 February 2026, the employee was confronted with this and summarily dismissed. The employer accused him of structurally working too few hours, receiving wages for this regardless, and not having been honest about it.
The employee accepted the end of the employment contract but argued the dismissal was not valid. He claimed, among other things, a transition payment, compensation for irregular termination, and fair compensation.
Ruling
The subdistrict court ruled that the summary dismissal was not valid.
The employer based the dismissal on three allegations: that the employee had structurally worked significantly fewer hours than agreed, that he had received wages for the hours not worked, and that he had not been honest about this.
According to the subdistrict court, these allegations were insufficiently proven. The employer had covertly examined the employee’s login and logout data but had no legitimate interest for doing so within the meaning of the GDPR. The employee was permitted to work from home and did not know his login data could be monitored. Moreover, the messages from the accountant and CBS did not prove that he had missed deadlines or failed to work his hours. The employer should therefore have first raised these signals with him.
Nor could it be inferred from the login data that the employee had structurally worked significantly fewer hours. Not being logged in did not automatically mean he was not working, since he could also carry out offline tasks. The employee was, however, unable to account for all 27 unregistered hours. The investigation covered only four and a half weeks, though, and amounted to just over one hour per working day. A less severe measure, such as a warning or making arrangements about time registration, was therefore appropriate.
The allegation that the employee had not been honest during the dismissal meeting also did not constitute an independent urgent cause. He did not know in advance what the meeting was about and was not required to be prepared to account for his working hours.
The employer therefore has to pay the employee EUR 11,544.34 gross in compensation for irregular termination, as well as a transition payment of EUR 12,066.95 gross and fair compensation of EUR 60,000 gross. It must also settle outstanding amounts for holiday days and holiday allowance and reverse earlier deductions.
What does this mean for employers?
This ruling shows that login and logout data may not simply be used to check whether an employee is working enough hours. A legitimate interest must exist for covert monitoring. The monitoring must also be necessary and proportionate, and it must be assessed whether a less intrusive means is available.
Where an employer suspects insufficient hours are being worked, it would do well to first have a conversation with the employee. This certainly applies where working from home is permitted, the employee had previously performed well, and personal circumstances or high workload play a role.
In addition, login data does not automatically prove how many hours someone has worked. Employees can also carry out offline tasks, such as in-person meetings, analysis, planning, or management duties. Summary dismissal requires concrete and convincing evidence.
Even if an employee cannot properly account for part of their hours, this does not mean the most severe measure can be applied immediately. A warning, adjusting the working-from-home arrangements, time registration, or a performance improvement process may be more appropriate.
Do you have questions about monitoring employees, working from home, time theft, or summary dismissal? Please contact one of our employment lawyers.
Click here for the full ruling (in Dutch).
