In its ruling of January 17.01.2023, 5 (Az: 243 Sa 22/XNUMX), the Thuringian State Labor Court decided that the termination of an employee is also effective if the employee “withdrew” it and then continued to work.

1. FACTS

The plaintiff employee had worked as a fitter in various positions for the defendant company since 1998. In his employment contract, under the heading “Termination,” there was, among other things, the following provision: “Termination of the employment relationship must be in writing. The employment relationship can be terminated by either party with three months' notice to the end of the quarter. Furthermore, the extension of the notice periods is in accordance with § 622 para. 2 BGB agreed, which are considered agreed for both the employer and the employee.” In a letter dated April 07.04.2021, 19.11.2021, the employee terminated the employment relationship in writing at the next possible date. The employee subsequently sent two emails to the employer in which he “withdrew” his termination. In these emails he also stated his willingness to continue the employment relationship. These emails went without any response from the employer. As a result, the employee continued to work until November 30.11.2021, 07.04.2021. On that day he was asked to attend a personnel interview. During this conversation it was revealed to him that the termination notice should remain the same. The employee then returned his company key, his work ID card and his work cell phone. He took his remaining vacation until November XNUMX, XNUMX. He sued for a declaration that the termination of April XNUMX, XNUMX was ineffective.

The labor court dismissed the employee's claim for declaratory judgment. The State Labor Court confirmed this judgment with the decision discussed here.

2. DECISION

According to the State Labor Court, the employment relationship was effectively terminated by the employee in a letter dated April 07.04.2021, 30.11.2021 to November XNUMX, XNUMX. A continuation of the employment relationship was not agreed between the parties.

It was not possible for the plaintiff (employee) to withdraw the termination because the termination was a unilateral declaration of intent that required receipt. In this case, the notice period expired on November 30.11.2021, 30.11.2021. The employer employed the employee until November 07.04.2021, XNUMX and paid him properly. Furthermore, the company never commented on the notice period. The company had no reason to do this because the employee did not specify a date in the termination letter dated April XNUMX, XNUMX.

3. CONCLUSION 

The decision is convincing in its substance. However, it also shows that after an employee has been terminated, circumstances can arise that may lead to the acceptance of an implied agreement on continued employment. Therefore, employers should always check very carefully what actions they take towards such employees.