One Wrong Move: German Employers Face Invalid Dismissals Over Critical Procedural Blunders
12.06.2026 - 07:14:31 | boerse-global.de
A single timing error can void a dismissal in Germany, as a recent ruling from the Federal Labor Court (BAG) underlines. The court decided on January 29, 2026, that firing a severely disabled worker is invalid if the employer issues the notice before the mandatory one-week consultation period with the Severely Disabled Employees’ Representative (SBV) has fully elapsed. In the case at hand, the employer sent the termination on the afternoon of the final day of the week – but the clock had not yet struck midnight. The BAG also stressed that a mere “acknowledgement note” from the SBV does not suffice; the employer must actively follow up if there is any ambiguity about whether the representative has completed its assessment.
Procedural carelessness cuts both ways. Another case, aired by the Baden-Württemberg Regional Labor Court (LAG), shows how incomplete information can unravel a dismissal. An employer fired a severely disabled employee (with a degree of disability of 70, GdB 70) accused of fuel theft from a company vehicle. Yet the employer failed to tell the works council that an internal test had actually cleared the worker – and also neglected to pass along the employee’s own statement. The LAG declared the termination invalid.
Just as strict procedural steps protect employees in Germany, UK employers face their own compliance obligations – especially when it comes to workplace health and safety documentation. A missing risk assessment or outdated checklist can lead to fines or legal claims. That’s why a free Health & Safety Toolkit offers ready-to-use templates and checklists aligned with UK regulations. Download the free Health & Safety Toolkit
Beyond termination formalities, workplace surveillance remains a tightrope for employers. Jasmin Haindl, a labor law expert at the Vienna Chamber of Labor (Arbeiterkammer Wien), emphasises that “operational processes must not come at the expense of employees’ privacy.” Monitoring via video cameras, GPS tracking, or e-mail checks generally requires employee consent. An exception exists only for severe abuse: the Berlin-Brandenburg Regional Labor Court confirmed in January 2016 that an instant dismissal was lawful when an employee used his work computer for excessive private browsing on five out of thirty working days – even without prior explicit permission.
The current World Cup in North America adds a seasonal trap. Employees who stream matches or follow live tickers during work hours without explicit approval risk warnings or even dismissal. While listening to the radio may be tolerated in some workplaces, video streaming is a different matter entirely.
Free expression in the public sector also has strict limits. A Bremen jobcenter employee appeared in a TV documentary and a podcast, sharply criticising the administration of the citizen’s benefit (Bürgergeld). He claimed a significant share of recipients provide false information and that the jobcenter merely functions as a money distribution agency. The city of Bremen fired him without notice, citing a destroyed trust relationship and unauthorized interviews. The responsible senator insists the alleged fraud figures are unsubstantiated. The employee, asserting his right to free speech, has announced legal action – highlighting the conflict between public-service loyalty and constitutional rights.
Finally, when companies operate multiple locations, the division of power between the central works council (Gesamtbetriebsrat) and local bodies matters. The Gesamtbetriebsrat may intervene only when a uniform structure is objectively necessary; mere economic convenience is insufficient. This is relevant for firms like JYSK, which during restructuring shifted accounting functions between sites, while having to respect local co-determination rights.
