A workplace feud over stolen holiday sweets at Amsterdam law firm Stibbe has ended in a court ruling against the company.
An Amsterdam judge decided that the Zuidas-based firm was wrong to freeze an employee’s wages during a dispute that followed repeated chocolate thefts.
The conflict began when a female employee noticed suspicious behaviour from a male colleague with whom she shared an office.
In April of last year, she reported to human resources that the man had repeatedly skipped paying for his lunch and had taken multiple chocolate gift boxes intended for staff during the holidays.
Tensions rose further one month later when a box of Easter chocolates went missing from the office. The woman confronted her colleague directly, and he admitted to taking the package.
She decided not to file an official report at that time, but warned him by email that she would report any future incidents.
Office drawer search and sick leave
The issue resurfaced around Christmas, when the same colleague was placed in charge of distributing holiday chocolates to staff. Suspecting that he had not changed his ways, the woman searched his desk drawers and his personal bag, where she discovered several boxes of chocolates.
She reported the discovery to her supervisor, prompting a series of internal meetings between the colleagues and management. The employee felt unsupported during the discussions, later stating she was treated as the instigator rather than the victim of the repeated thefts.
In January of this year, the woman called in sick and stopped coming into the Zuidas office. An occupational health physician examined her and recommended that both parties enter into dialogue to resolve the workplace friction.
Dispute over formal mediation
The employee insisted that any discussions take place through formal mediation, arguing that legal confidentiality would provide a safer environment. Stibbe offered an independent discussion leader instead, refusing to agree to formal mediation with confidentiality clauses.
Because the two sides could not agree on the meeting conditions, Stibbe halted the woman’s salary in April. The firm argued that she was failing to cooperate with her reintegration process.
The Amsterdam court rejected the law firm’s position, ruling that the employee had not refused to cooperate. The judge noted that requesting confidentiality was a reasonable condition and that the company doctor had expressed a preference for someone with a mediation background.
Financial penalty for law firm
While the court clarified that employers cannot be legally compelled into formal mediation, it ruled that stopping her pay was unlawful under the circumstances.
Stibbe was ordered to pay nearly 7,000 euros in unpaid wages, holiday allowance, and legal costs. The law firm must also pay statutory interest and an increase of up to 25 percent on the overdue salary.
