The Saxon State Labor Court decided in its judgment of April 17.04.2022, 9 (file number: 250 Sa 21/XNUMX) that a violation of work instructions that have data protection content can justify termination for behavioral reasons.
1. FACTS
The plaintiff employee had been working for the defendant company as a loan officer for around six years - most recently part-time with 30 hours per week. She earned around EUR 3.500 gross per month. The defendant employer has a works council. There is also a work instruction with the following title: “Procedure for information security in the workplace and clean desk policy”. This policy states, among other things:
“It must be ensured that sensitive or secret information – whether in paper form or on a screen – cannot be viewed by third parties. If the workplace is abandoned or unattended: files, data carriers or hardware containing information that require protection must be properly locked away or disposed of properly. (…)”
The plaintiff had already violated this guideline several times. She had already received several warnings for this. In November 2020, the defendant company changed its headquarters, where the plaintiff had last worked. Since the plaintiff was unable to work at the time, she allowed the employer to empty her desk in the presence of a works council member. The company discovered that numerous sensitive documents were lying unlocked in desk drawers.
After a works council hearing, the company issued an ordinary dismissal for behavioral reasons. The employee defended herself against this (with the support of a lawyer) by filing a lawsuit before the labor court. The labor court upheld the dismissal protection claim.
2. DECISION
In response to the defendant company's appeal, the State Labor Court changed the judgment and dismissed the dismissal protection claim.
According to the Saxon State Labor Court, the termination was justified for behavioral reasons (cf. Section 1 Paragraph 2 KSchG). Based on the warnings, a negative prognosis can be assumed. In addition, the balancing of interests would be to the detriment of the plaintiff.
Together with the incidents that were warned, overall this represents a significant breach of duty by the employee. The defendant was not obliged to issue a further warning. In the court's opinion, the breach of duty was clearly the failure to implement the work instructions from the policy. The plaintiff employee had kept sensitive documents unlocked in her desk despite the express instructions that resulted from this.
The court also emphasized that these obligations were not merely ancillary obligations. The provision of work within the framework of the lawfully exercised right of direction - which also includes work instructions on data protection - is the main obligation to perform.
3. CONCLUSION
The decision once again makes it clear: Data protection requirements should be taken seriously by both parties to the employment relationship. If the employer is threatened with significant fines for violations, it can cost employees their jobs. But works councils should not take data protection lightly either. In the worst case scenario, they can also face personal liability.
