Extraordinary termination for the embezzlement of low-value amounts?

April 26, 2022

In its ruling of September 10.09.2021, 10 (Az: 347 Sa 21/XNUMX), the Hesse State Labor Court considered the extraordinary termination given to a bus driver to be effective because he had embezzled small amounts of money for tickets.

1. THE FACT

The plaintiff employee was employed by the company as a bus driver. He has a disability level of 50%. The company accused the employee of embezzling small amounts (2-3 EUR) of fares in several cases. The employer had already warned the employee about one of these issues. For another incident, the employer applied to the responsible integration office for approval of the extraordinary termination by email/or via the integration office's online procedure (disputed between the parties). The integration office gave approval. The Offenbach labor court had upheld the dismissal protection claim. The Hessian State Labor Court However, he rejected this and viewed the extraordinary termination as effective.

2. THE DECISION

The court first stated that property and property crimes committed by the employee at the expense of the employer are generally an important reason in themselves for an extraordinary termination of the employment relationship § 626 para. 1 BGB represent. This represents a significant breach of the employee's duty to take the employer's interests into account § 241 para. 2 BGB. However, the criminal assessment is not important. Rather, only the serious breach of trust caused by the breach of duty is decisive. In principle, this also applies to unlawful access to the employer's property of little value by the employee. The termination was also not disproportionate since the employee had been given a relevant warning. In particular, the employee cannot therefore rely on a trust earned over a long-term employment relationship.

Furthermore, the termination was not due to a violation of § 168 SGB IX (Consent from the Integration Office) invalid. Because even if the employer's application for consent was submitted by simple email, that is in accordance Section 170 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB IX sufficient. This regulation only requires it to be in writing or electronic Submission.

3. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION

The decision shows once again that property crimes relating to low-value items/values can also justify extraordinary termination. The decision thus fits in with the Federal Labor Court's established case law on this topic.

The court’s comments are also important Section 170 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB IX. If the employer does not want to take any risks here, he should always submit the application for approval to the integration office in writing.