| Case No. | Summary of Rule | Proclamation / Article |
| 41767 | Fraudulent acts that impact production (e.g., working two jobs without consent) justify dismissal, even if not explicitly deceitful, due to their adverse effect on employer interests. | 377/96 (Art. 27(1)(c)) |
| 225138 | Working simultaneously at two institutions without agreement is fraudulent under both proclamations and justifies dismissal without notice. Harm to the employer is not required. | 377/96 & 1156/2011 (Art. 27(1)(c)) |
| 234533 | Fraud must occur during work and aim to gain an advantage or harm the employer. External fraud unrelated to work duties is insufficient. | 1156/2011 (Art. 27(1)(c)) |
| 39543 | Fraud must occur during employment. Termination based solely on pre-hire misrepresentation (e.g., a fake certificate) is illegal. | 377/96 (Art. 27(1)(c)) |
| 95522 | Attempted fraud or deceit during work, even without proven harm or benefit, is grounds for dismissal without notice. | 377/96 (Art. 27(1)(c)) |
| 102994 | Locking goods in an unauthorized location (e.g., a toilet) constitutes fraud if no legal justification exists, supporting dismissal without notice. | 377/96 (Art. 27(1)(c)) |
| 50009 | Minor acts unrelated to core job duties (e.g., inviting an outsider to a cafeteria) do not constitute “serious fraud or deception,” making dismissal illegal. | 377/96 (Art. 27(1)(c)) |
| 42818 | Working elsewhere during overtime is not a specified ground for dismissal unless explicitly prohibited by regulation. | 377/96 (Art. 27) |
| 21961 | Employee errors due to employer mistakes (e.g., delivering goods to the wrong address) do not constitute fraud. Missing goods without proof of deceit do not justify dismissal. | 377/96 (Art. 27(1)(c)) |
Causing Damage to the Property or Misappropriation of Funds
Damage to Property (Article 27(1)(h))
| Case No. | Summary of Rule | Proclamation / Article |
| 226193 | Dismissal requires proof of intent or gross negligence in damaging employer property; accidental or ordinary negligence is insufficient. | 1156/2011 (Art. 27(1)(h)) |
| 206283 | A driver’s failure to drive cautiously in adverse conditions, causing damage, is gross negligence justifying dismissal without notice. | 1156/11 (Arts. 13(3), 27(1)(h)) |
| 209046 | Dismissal requires proof of both damage to employer property and the employee’s intentional or grossly negligent act. | 377/96 (Art. 27(1)(h)) |
| 108789 | “Employer’s property” includes economic benefits (e.g., disrupted work activities from disobedience), allowing dismissal without notice. | 377/96 (Art. 27(1)(h)) |
| 34669 | Property includes anything of economic value; intentional or grossly negligent damage warrants dismissal. | 377/96 (Art. 27(1)(h)) |
| 64988 | Damaging an employer’s economically valuable asset (e.g., goodwill via false statements) intentionally or with gross negligence justifies dismissal. | 377/96 (Art. 27(1)(h)) |
| 39650 | Security guards’ failure to prevent property loss while on duty is gross negligence, justifying dismissal unless they prove non-contribution. | 377/96 (Arts. 13(3), 27(1)(h)) |
| 74400 | Dismissal is limited to damage to the employer’s property, not a sister company’s, unless directly work-related. | 377/96 (Art. 27(1)(h)) |
| 111839 | A driver’s reckless driving causing an accident constitutes gross negligence and justifies dismissal without notice. | 377/96 (Art. 27(1)(h)) |
| 104294 | Failing to report on a bidding process, causing exclusion and economic loss, is grounds for dismissal. | 377/96 (Art. 27(1)(h)) |
| 39118 | Loss of employer property without proof it wasn’t for personal/third-party benefit justifies dismissal. | 377/96 (Art. 27(1)(h)) |
| 82091 | Confiscating employer property without excuse justifies dismissal. | 377/96 (Art. 27(1)(h)) |