Cologne Labour Court: No entitlement to better severance pay in the event of subsequent employer programmes (19 Ca 2283/24)

On 6 September 2024, the Cologne Labour Court ruled on a question that has been on the minds of many long-standing employees: can a termination agreement that has already been signed be amended retrospectively if the employer later offers better conditions?
The answer was unequivocal: No.

Starting point: Cancellation agreement with 55 % bridging allowance

The plaintiff, who has worked for the company since 1990, concluded a termination agreement in December 2021. It stipulated that he would receive a monthly bridging allowance of % of his last gross salary until 2031.

Two years later, the company launched a new volunteer programme - this time with 65 % Bridging allowance. The plaintiff considered himself to be at a disadvantage and demanded that his contract be amended or compensation paid. The basis of his argument was a flyer from 2019, which stated: "The conditions will not improve over time."

Plaintiff's core argument: advertising statement as a binding promise

The plaintiff interpreted the sentence to mean Cross-programme is meant - i.e. it applies to all future cancellation offers.

• If he had been aware that later programmes would bring better conditions, he would not have signed his contract.

• He invoked the principle of fair negotiations and alleged deception by the employer.

• Alternatively, he argued with § 313 BGB ("disturbance of the basis of the transaction") - the agreement should be adjusted as the conditions had subsequently changed.

Reasoning of the court: Programme-related, not cross-programme

The Labour Court rejected this argument. Three points were decisive:

1. Interpretation of the statement in the flyer (§ 133 BGB analogue):
   An objective recipient would have had to apply the sentence to the concrete programme ("R & Re"). The information was contained in a flyer that exclusively advertised this programme. An unlimited commitment was unrealistic, as future programmes always depended on the budget and Group specifications.

2. No interference with the basis of the transaction (Section 313 BGB):
   Even if the plaintiff had hoped for unchanged conditions, this was only a one-sided expectationnot the common basis of the contract. The risk that conditions improve later lies with the employee.

3. No breach of the requirement of fair negotiation (Section 241 (2) BGB):
   The court emphasised that there was no impermissible pressure situation. The programme ran over a longer period of time and employees were able to review and reflect. Although the sentence in the flyer was promotional in nature, it did not cross the line into unfair methods.

Why later programmes are irrelevant: The "double voluntariness"

Even if one were to assume that the plaintiff would not have signed in 2021 if he had been aware of better conditions, this would not have helped him.
All programmes were based on the principle of double voluntariness:

• Employees were able to make an offer,

• but the employer did not have to accept it.

This means that the company could have freely decided in 2023 whether to let the plaintiff leave on better terms. This means that there was no causality between the alleged breach of duty and the damage claimed.

Practical significance: What employees need to be aware of

This ruling shows that it is not very promising for employees to hope for later programmes and then sue for retroactive adjustments. The decisive factor is:

• Flyers and statements are mostly programme-specific.
  Only that which is expressly guaranteed for the future can be binding.

• The risk of future developments lies with the employee.
  Whoever signs accepts the risk that later offers could be more favourable.

• Causality is crucial.
  Even if expectations are wrong, the employee would not automatically be entitled to participate in a later programme, as the employer is free to decide.

Specific recommendations: How to realistically review cancellation agreements

If you are faced with the decision, you should not rely solely on advertising rates. A structured review is helpful:

1. Clarify document situation:
   Which statements apply to this programme and which explicitly apply to the future? Save everything in writing.

2. Weigh up the risks:
   Could there be better conditions later? Yes. But that is beyond our control.

3. Consider alternative scenarios:
   What happens if I don't sign? Continued payment of wages, possible dismissal, new programmes?

4. Obtain legal advice:
   Labour law advice can help to avoid misunderstandings about the scope and binding effect.

Conclusion: The first contract remains binding

The Cologne Labour Court has made it unmistakably clear:
A signed cancellation agreement is final. Anyone hoping for later programmes with better conditions bears this risk themselves.
The wording in the 2019 flyer was not a guarantee for the future, but only an indication of the specific programme. If you require advice in this regard, a Lawyer for labour law help you.

For employees, this means that the decision must be based on facts on the table, not on vague expectations.

Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.

If you need legal advice, please feel free to call us at 0221 - 80187670 or send us an email at or send an email to info@mth-partner.de info@mth-partner.de