Mannheim Labor Court confirms dismissal of a works council without notice

April 14, 2022

The Mannheim Labor Court In a judgment dated December 01.12.2021, 2, the Walldorf company SAP confirmed the extraordinary termination without notice given to the plaintiff works council chairman (case number: 106 Ca 21/XNUMX). However, the decision is not yet legally binding.

1. THE FACT

The company gave the plaintiff works council an extraordinary dismissal without notice Civil Code § 626 was pronounced, which was based, among other things, on the following breaches of duty: The works council member had falsified internal minutes of works council meetings, changed emails and suppressed them and removed them from the email inbox. The company had the relevant works council's approval of the extraordinary termination Section 103 Paragraph 1 BetrVG requested. The works council has given its consent.

2. DECISION

The works council's legal complaint before the Federal Labor Court was also unsuccessful. The second chamber of the Mannheim Labor Court justified the decision, among other things, by saying that the breached duties were not initially purely official duties of a works council member. Rather, these obligations apply to every employee regardless of whether they are a member of the works council. An important reason for termination without notice Civil Code § 626 be given. The plaintiff works council manipulated data specifically and over a longer period of time. The relationship of trust with the company has therefore been permanently destroyed. Errors in the consent process § 103 BetrVG the court could not recognize. In addition, the two-week period is § 626 para. 2 BGB been adhered to.

3. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION

The decision of the Mannheim Labor Court is logical. What is crucial first is the assignment of the duties violated by the works council member: Do they count as general work duties or as part of the duties of a works council. The employer can only respond to violations of general obligations arising from the employment relationship with measures under labor law (warnings, termination, etc.).

In this context, it is important to point out the procedure again Section 103 Paragraph 1 BetrVG. In practice, this can quickly lead to “complications”. compliance with the two-week deadline to § 626 para. 2 BGB come:

A works council member enjoys Section 15 Paragraph 1 KSchG (Dismissal Protection Act) provides special protection against dismissal. The employer can then only terminate a works council member for good cause. He also has to go Section 103 Paragraph 1 BetrVG Obtain the works council's consent in advance to issue the termination. The works council now has three days time (see. Section 102 Paragraph 2 Sentence 3 BetrVG) to give consent. If he grants it, the employer must give notice of termination within the two-week period. If he doesn't give it or if he stays silent, he gives there is no fiction of consent. The employer must then (after the three days have passed) apply to the labor court to replace the consent within the two-week period.

Also interesting in this context is the decision of the Baden-Württemberg State Labor Court on the liability of a works council for data protection violations.