With a ruling dated June 01.06.2022, XNUMX (Ref: 7 AZR 151/21) decided that working as a manager or in a managerial position does not constitute a reason for a fixed-term contract due to the nature of the work (Section 14 Paragraph 1 No. 4 TzBfG). In particular, the employee's prominent position or the resulting powers do not result in the employer having a legitimate interest in a fixed-term contract. This applies even if there was extensive freedom from instructions in the relevant employment relationship.

1. FACTS

In the proceedings, the parties disputed the effectiveness of a fixed-term contract. The plaintiff worked for the defendant (a public hospital) as director of a cross-campus center for radiology and diagnostics on the basis of a fixed-term employment contract. He worked largely without instructions and in a prominent position. He subsequently filed an action for a termination of the contract against an expiring fixed-term contract § 17 TzBfG. The labor court had dismissed the lawsuit. The plaintiff employee's appeal against this was successful.

2. DECISION

The defendant's appeal was unsuccessful. From the perspective of the Federal Labor Court, the fixed-term contract was ineffective. In particular, a time limit is not based on the factual nature of the work § 14 Paragraph 1 No. 4 TzBfG justified. The law does not specify in more detail what is meant by the nature of the work performance. However, not every such characteristic is suitable to justify a time limit. A fixed-term contract is only possible if the work performance has special features that give rise to a legitimate interest of the parties, in particular the employer, in concluding only a fixed-term contract instead of a permanent contract. These special circumstances would have to outweigh the employee's interest in establishing a continuing obligation. From the point of view of the Federal Labor Court, neither freedom from instructions nor a particularly prominent position of an employee is sufficient. In particular, the mere fact that a person is a senior employee within the meaning of the Section 14 Paragraph 2 KSchG is not sufficient to justify such a legitimate interest.

3. CONCLUSION 

This decision is no surprise and fits in with the previous case law of the Federal Labor Court. For employers who want to install a certain dynamic through competition in top management positions through fixed-term contracts, the familiar requirements remain. It is still a tight constraint that employers have to comply with in the context of basic fixed-term contracts Section 14 Paragraph 1 TzBfG allowed to move.