Can You Be Fired for Taking Coffee from the Office? What the Law Says About “Helping Yourself” to Company Property

20.03.2026

Matylda is a Chief Financial Officer. In her company—a dynamically developing pharmaceutical corporation—it was time for the annual audit of administrative expenses.

Matylda analyzed the invoices with disbelief. She wondered how daily office expenses could be steadily rising, especially since the company had successfully implemented hybrid work, and most of the team appeared in the office only twice a week. The numbers didn’t lie, but something didn’t add up.

One Friday late afternoon, Matylda returned to the office for a forgotten charger. In the kitchen, she ran into Agnieszka—one of the key managers. Agnieszka was packing an entire box of coffee capsules into her bag. Surprised, Matylda asked her directly what she was doing.

“Oh, come on. It’s pennies for a company like ours,” Agnieszka replied without embarrassment. “Besides, I work almost entirely remotely, so I don’t drink coffee in the office. Why should I be deprived of a benefit that we all deserve?”

Finally, Agnieszka added that Matylda should instead look into Jacek—a manager who, a week earlier, printed a 200-page textbook for his daughter on the office printer. “I’ll get you some colored highlighters from work too,” he reportedly told his daughter over the phone.

Matylda was in shock. She knew employees enjoyed using office supplies and might take a coffee “to go” at the end of the day. She had no idea, however, that systematic removal of company inventory was occurring.

This is theft, Matylda thought. She valued Agnieszka’s and Jacek’s competence, but this situation completely shattered her trust in the staff.

The Line Between Benefit and Abuse

In today’s world, it is standard for an employer to provide technical and social facilities: from paper and pens to coffee, snacks, electronic equipment, and a comfortable office. This is all intended to support effective work and build a comfortable environment.

As a general rule, however—unless internal regulations state otherwise—these tools and benefits are intended for performing work, not for the private needs of employees.

A single printout from the office printer, a colorful notebook, or an extra apple during “Fruit Thursday” usually falls within the limits of tolerance. The company will not feel the impact of such an incident.

The problem begins when “helping oneself to things from work” becomes an employee standard, and another kilogram bag of coffee vanishes from the kitchen. For the employee, it’s a trifle. For the company, it’s a matter of loyalty, organizational culture, and actual costs.

What Does the Law Say About “Helping Yourself” to Company Goods?

Labor law leaves no room for doubt. An employee has the obligation to:

• care for the company’s interests;
• protect the employer’s property;
• observe the rules of social conduct in the workplace.

These are not just vague, “soft” slogans, but fundamental employee duties.

The duty to protect company property is not just a “prohibition of theft” in the criminal sense. This obligation means that an employee should refrain from any misappropriation of the employer’s property—even if its value is negligible in light of corporate spending.

“Helping yourself to things from work” is a matter of loyalty to the company.

Therefore, if an employee takes home a ream of paper, a package of coffee, or—contrary to established company rules—uses the printer for private purposes, they violate their basic employee duty.

This, in turn, can result in consequences. Depending on the circumstances and the gravity of the incident, these can range from a warning or reprimand to termination of employment, including summary dismissal (dismissal for cause).

Can Vanishing Coffee End in Summary Dismissal?

Yes—under specific circumstances.

Termination of an employment contract without notice (summary dismissal) is an extraordinary measure used in cases of gross breach of basic employee duties. Misappropriation of the employer’s property can be classified as such.

It does not matter whether the value of the item taken by the employee is high or low, nor whether such theft qualifies as a crime or a misdemeanor under criminal law.

“The theft by a driver-conductor of the amount of 1 PLN in a situation where he had been previously punished twice for similar misdemeanors justifies the termination of the employment contract without notice (…).” [Supreme Court Judgment of 19.11.1997, I PKN 378/97].

In practice, to assess whether an employee’s behavior justifies summary dismissal, the entire broad context of the incident must be considered. Specifically:

• Intent and Guilt: We are not talking about an employee reflexively dropping a company pen into their bag after a meeting. However, when someone nervously looks around the kitchen while hiding a 1kg bag of coffee, it’s hard to speak of a “reflexive” action.
• Repetitiveness: Systematic misappropriation significantly increases the weight of the breach, although a one-time incident can also—in certain circumstances—justify dismissal (e.g., if the property is of high value).
• Violation of Company Interests: The employer’s interest is not just financial. It also involves work discipline, ethical standards, and the example set for other employees. Breaking the rules can have a demoralizing effect on the team.
• The Employee’s Position: The higher the position, the higher the expectations. It’s not that an intern can take coffee and a manager cannot, but a manager with access to sensitive data or financial information is held to a higher standard of business ethics and responsibility.

It is also vital to secure evidence—official notes, CCTV footage, or witnesses.

What if Summary Dismissal is Too Drastic?

Not every misappropriation of property will justify an immediate split with the employee. However, it often happens that even when circumstances do not allow for summary dismissal, the company concludes that further cooperation is no longer possible.

Taking things from work can undermine the trust in the employee.

Misappropriation of employer property—even of small value—is a situation in which the trust between employee and employer can be irreparably breached. Loss of trust, if based on objective and rational grounds, can constitute an independent and justified reason for terminating an employment contract with notice.

“Loss of trust in an employee may justify the termination of an employment contract if it results from objective and rational reasons that make further employment impossible” [Supreme Court Judgment of 25.01.2005, I PK 153/04].

In the case of a manager—who serves as a team leader—even misappropriating a “small” item can undermine the foundation of future cooperation. After all, the example always comes from the top.

Even if it doesn’t end in firing—react. Failing to respond is also a decision, and it carries its own risks.