A Dutch appeal ruling has put immediate dismissal over disputed working hours under fresh scrutiny. A difference between a timesheet and vehicle data can raise serious questions. It does not, by itself, prove dishonesty. The evidence, stated reason and employer response determine the available dismissal route.
Why this matters
One disputed hour can become an expensive employment file. Immediate dismissal requires an urgent reason. The employer must act promptly and state that reason immediately. Weak records can lead to continued salary, legal costs and cover for missed shifts. Payroll, planning and client work can suffer too. Poor performance, unclear rules, illness, a damaged relationship and false reporting each require a different response.
Example
An installation company finds that a technician's van returned at 4 p.m. The timesheet shows work until 5 p.m. Before alleging fraud, the manager checks the work order, client call, travel rule, administration record and prior approval. The extra hour may be valid, entered wrongly or unsupported. Each finding calls for a different payroll or employment response.
XTROVERSO tips
- Set out what counts as working time. Define travel, breaks, waiting, administration and overtime. Payroll, planning and managers should apply the same rules.
- Check the complete record. Compare the timesheet with work orders, route data, client records and approvals. One record rarely explains a full working day.
- Ask the employee for an explanation. Record the explanation and supporting documents. Keep established facts separate from assumptions about intent.
- Use the right employment route. Separate a payroll error from poor performance, misconduct, illness or a damaged working relationship. Do not turn every issue into a fraud allegation.
- Keep a dated decision file. Note when the discrepancy appeared, what the company checked and why it chose its response. Seek employment-law advice before immediate dismissal.
Need help reviewing an hours dispute before it becomes a costly dismissal file?
The data, sourcing, and analysis behind this article were conducted by Linda Pavan. AI was not used to identify sources, build the factual basis, or produce the analytical judgment contained here. AI was used only as a drafting aid. The final English text was personally reviewed, edited, and approved by Linda Pavan before publication.
References
- Salaris Vanmorgen – Ontslag op staande voet vanwege dagdieverij of urenfraude onterecht
- Rechtspraak – ECLI:NL:GHARL:2026:4034
- Rijksoverheid – Ontslag op staande voet
- UWV – Ontslag om persoonlijke redenen
- UWV – Ontslag tijdens ziekte
- CBS – Cao-lonen en contractuele loonkosten
- CBS – Werkloosheid in juni 2026
- Wettenbank – Burgerlijk Wetboek 7, artikel 678
