There were again important labor law decisions in 2022. We have already presented some of these judgments and decisions in detail in our blog. Below you will find another overview and a short summary of the most important decisions from 2022.
1. DESIGNATED INFORMATION FOR A MASS DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION (HERE: AGE AND GENDER)
In its judgment of May 19.05.2022, 2 (case number: 467 AZR 22/XNUMX), the Federal Labor Court decided that employers are not obliged to indicate the age and gender of the affected employees when announcing mass layoffs.
In this case decided by the Federal Labor Court, the lower courts ruled differently. They had declared the dismissal of an employee invalid because neither age nor gender was specified in the notice of mass dismissal. With this decision, the Federal Labor Court has now made it clear that the mere lack of target information in a mass layoff notice does not lead to the invalidity of a termination.
2. TRANSFER ABROAD
In its ruling of November 30.11.2022, 5 (case number: 336 AZR 22/XNUMX), the Federal Labor Court decided that employees can be permanently transferred abroad unless otherwise agreed in the employment contract.
A Ryanair pilot who was transferred from the closed Nuremberg location to Bologna had sued against this transfer. The aim of his lawsuit was to establish that the transfer to Italy was ineffective. He did not achieve this goal. The Federal Labor Court considered the transfer to be effective in this individual case. The right of employers to give instructions regarding the place of work applies not only to Germany, but basically to all locations worldwide. The only decisive factor in these cases is whether the transfer is reasonable for the employee in the specific individual case.
3. CANCELLATION AGREEMENT UNDER PRESSURE
In a further judgment dated February 24.02.2022, 6 (case number: 333 AZR 21/XNUMX), the Federal Labor Court did not consider the requirement of fair bargaining to have been violated. In this case, the employer made the acceptance of an offer of termination of the contract by an employee dependent on the condition that she accepted the offer immediately. The requirement of fair negotiation was also not violated by the fact that the employee was not given any time to think about it and was denied the legal advice she had requested.
4. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR HOLIDAYS
According to the decision of the Federal Labor Court of December 20.12.2022, 9 (case number: 266 AZR 22/XNUMX), vacation only becomes statute-barred if the employer has informed the employee that a vacation entitlement exists and that it will expire if it is not used. If there is no such notice from the employer, the employer cannot rely on the three-year limitation period according to the Civil Code.
Although this decision was expected, it once again made it clear to companies how important it is to correctly implement the obligation to provide information. Otherwise, there could be massive claims for compensation (in this case 101 days of vacation).
5. RECORDING WORKING TIME
Finally, the decision of the Federal Labor Court of September 13.09.2022, 1 (ref: 22 ABR 21/XNUMX) on working time recording received considerable attention. In it, the Federal Labor Court made it clear that employers are obliged to actually record the location, start, duration and end of employees' working hours. Simply providing a working time recording system is not enough. With regard to this decision, numerous points are unclear, such as its validity for senior employees, the scope of the works council's co-determination in time recording, and the extent of the permissibility of trust-based working hours. These questions will be addressed in the next blog post.
