The sphere of labor relations is one of the most significant elements of a country's economic system, since an orderly process of producing goods and services benefits the strengthening of the national economy and the development of society as a whole. At the same time, labor relations also play a major role for every individual employee, since most members of society spend the greater part of their time at work. For this reason, it is essential to establish legal norms capable of striking a fair balance between the interests of employees and employers.
Because it is quite difficult to cover every possible interaction between the two sides of an employment relationship, Germany has developed extensive case law governing more complex and unusual situations. In today's article, we would like to walk you through some of the most relevant recent rulings from German courts.
Good to Know
Summary dismissal without notice (fristlose Kündigung) under § 626 BGB is permissible only where serious grounds exist, and must be declared within 2 weeks of the employer becoming aware of them.
1. Alcohol and Drug Intoxication While Performing Work Duties
At first glance, a situation in which an employee shows up for work under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and in that state causes harm to a third party, looks fairly clear-cut — surely the employer must have the right to dismiss such an employee for breaching the terms of the employment contract. Case law, however, highlights several points that must be taken into account to reach a fair resolution of the dispute.
One of the specialized labor courts, for example, heard a case brought by an employee who was challenging his dismissal. The employee in question worked for a large company as a truck driver, and his duties included transporting goods between the company's branches. He reported for work while under the influence of alcohol and, in that state, was involved in a road traffic accident that badly damaged a third party's vehicle. A blood alcohol test was naturally carried out on the driver at fault, which established a significant excess over the permitted blood alcohol limit. On learning the details of the accident, the driver's employer dismissed him immediately for breaching the terms of his employment contract.
It should be noted that under § 622(1) of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB), either party may terminate an employment contract with 4 weeks' notice, effective either on the 15th of the month or at month's end. The longer an employee has worked at a company, however, the longer the notice period an employer must observe to terminate that employee's contract. After five years of service, for instance, the notice period is already two months; after fifteen years, it rises to 6 months, and so on.
Under § 626(1) of the German Civil Code, however, both employer and employee may terminate the contract without observing the notice periods above, provided a good cause exists.
In the case at hand, the employer took the view that the employee's alcohol intoxication while performing his duties constituted good cause for terminating the employment relationship without observing the statutory notice periods.
The employer's decision was challenged in court, where the employee's lawyer presented evidence that the truck driver had long suffered from alcoholism, meaning the breach of his duties had been unintentional. The lawyer also stated that his client had begun treatment, a fact confirmed by corresponding medical certificates.
After carefully reviewing the case file, the court concluded that dismissing the employee over this incident was unlawful, since he suffered from alcoholism, which is an officially recognized illness.
In a situation like this, then, an employee could be lawfully dismissed only where, for example, he had repeatedly breached the terms of his employment contract by reporting for work under the influence of alcohol while also avoiding treatment, or where treatment had already been attempted several times without success. Another significant argument in the employer's favor could be that the employee will be unable to perform his duties for a prolonged period.
Where an employee is under the influence of drugs, courts take a far less lenient view. One example involves a truck driver who took a strong narcotic substance over the weekend. Three days later, he came in to work, carried out his duties, and drove home in his own car at the end of the day. On the way home, he was stopped by a police patrol, which required a drug test. The test came back positive, and word reached the driver's employer, who immediately decided to dismiss him for good cause, without observing the statutory notice period.
This dismissal, too, was challenged by the employee in court, and although the first two instances ruled in his favor, the court of final appeal held the dismissal for cause to be lawful. Even though the driver had been stopped by police in his own car outside working hours, he had also carried out his work duties that day while under the influence of drugs. What's more, there was a strong likelihood that such violations had occurred repeatedly before, or might recur in future.
2. Theft of Personal Belongings at Work: Must the Employer Compensate the Loss?
Under German law, employers owe their employees not only primary obligations — such as the duty to pay wages on time — but also certain secondary duties. In particular, under § 241(2) of the German Civil Code, each party to an obligation must have regard to the rights, interests, and legally protected property of the other party.
The employer must therefore also create conditions in which employees can safely store their personal belongings at the workplace. Such security measures may include restricting third-party access to company premises, providing employees with lockable cabinets for their personal items, and the like. There is, however, an exception to this rule.
One German court heard a case brought by a company employee whose watch and jewelry, together worth 20,000 euros, had been stolen from his personal locker at work. The employee had brought these items into the office intending to later deposit them in a bank for safekeeping. He left the watch and jewelry in a lockable drawer of his desk but forgot to take them home that evening. Returning to the office two days later, he found his office door unlocked, the desk drawer also open, and the valuables he had left behind gone.
Naturally, the employee reported the theft to the police right away, but he also filed a claim seeking 20,000 euros from the employer, arguing that the employer had breached its secondary duties by failing to provide an adequate level of security at the workplace, which had led to the theft.
After carefully weighing all the circumstances of the case, however, the court sided with the employer. It concluded that an employer's duty to safeguard employees' personal belongings extends only to items that employees regularly carry with them (a coat, a mobile phone, an umbrella, and the like) and/or items an employee needs to perform their duties. Where such items cannot be protected from third-party interference directly at the workplace, it is sufficient for the employer to fulfill this secondary duty by providing lockable cabinets, shelves, or cupboards in which employees can store their personal belongings.
This duty to safeguard employees' property generally does not extend to other belongings. In particular, an employer bears no liability for expensive items an employee brings to the workplace without the employer's knowledge. Even if the employer had been notified that an employee intended to keep such items at work, the employer would still be exposed to unreasonable risk from that liability — which is why safeguarding an employee's valuable personal property at the workplace cannot fall within the employer's sphere of responsibility.
The court therefore concluded that jewelry worth 20,000 euros belongs in specially secured safekeeping — a bank vault, for instance — for which its owner would pay the corresponding fees. The employer had nothing to do with such safekeeping, particularly since it had not even been informed by the employee, and the loss he suffered was therefore not one the employer was required to compensate.
3. A Fight at the Office Party: Personal Matter or Employment Issue?
Office parties have become a welcome tradition at many companies in recent years, giving colleagues a chance to get to know each other better, build friendly relationships, and spend time together in an informal setting. Even here, though, it's worth remembering that such events are still organized by the employer — and the employment relationship extends to this sphere too.
One example is a case brought by an employee who, after several verbal clashes with a colleague at a New Year's office party, punched him repeatedly in the face and broke a glass he was holding over the colleague's head. Criminal proceedings were opened against the employee who started the fight, and the employer promptly dismissed him for good cause, without observing the statutory notice period.
The dismissal decision was challenged in court, but the case was decided in the employer's favor, since the employee's actions, in the court's view, grossly breached the duties set out in his employment contract — giving the employer good cause for immediate dismissal.
These examples from recent case law illustrate just how individually each court weighs a case, taking every circumstance into account — which is why we strongly recommend turning to an experienced lawyer, one capable of marshaling the right arguments and effectively defending your legal interests.
All rights reserved. Copying or republishing this article requires a link to the original source.
