The Schleswig-Holstein State Labor Court In its judgment of August 19, 2025 (case no. 1 Sa 104/25), the court of appeal made a fascinating decision regarding the validity of a dismissal following a tasteless “statement” in a WhatsApp group.
1. FACTS
The parties are disputing the validity of an extraordinary dismissal without notice. The plaintiff is employed by the defendant in the logistics department of the company's fire department. In July 2024, the plaintiff had a speech he gave filmed and posted in a WhatsApp group to which several colleagues were members. The plaintiff delivered the speech over the loudspeaker of a fire engine, wearing a fire service uniform. In the speech, which was delivered in the form of a eulogy, the plaintiff employee announced the death of his colleague. BB was also a member of the aforementioned WhatsApp group.
After the managing director learned about the video, she heard testimony from both the plaintiff and the affected employee, B. Employee B. stated that he considered the video a joke. The plaintiff employee explained that members of the WhatsApp group frequently shared jokes, etc., within the group.
The employer subsequently consulted the works council regarding the intended extraordinary, or alternatively, ordinary, termination. The works council objected to the termination. Nevertheless, the employer issued the termination notice.
The plaintiff employee challenged this decision with a wrongful termination suit. The labor court found the termination invalid and ordered the defendant to continue employment.
The defendant employer’s appeal was unsuccessful.
2. DECISION
According to the Regional Labor Court, the termination is invalid. An important reason within the meaning of § 626 para. 1 BGB is not available.
The plaintiff filmed the video during a break from work. This does not constitute a breach of duty. In the court's opinion, the plaintiff did indeed violate his duty of consideration according to § 241 para. 2 BGB This includes, in particular, maintaining industrial peace. However, this was not significantly disrupted, as the video was clearly intended as a joke and the plaintiff had shared it exclusively in the WhatsApp group. Therefore, the fact that the plaintiff wore uniforms and used the defendant's equipment vehicle was not likely to damage the defendant's reputation.
3. CONCLUSION
The decision clarifies the requirements that employers must meet when dismissing employees for breach of the general duty of consideration under § 241 para. 2 BGB must fulfill. In this case, it is not sufficient if industrial peace was also disturbed, but the statements or behavior had no external repercussions. In this case, reputational damage is excluded. If the employer wishes to base the dismissal solely on a disruption of industrial peace, the reasons for this must be significant.
