LAG Lower Saxony (10th chamber), Judgement from the 13.05.2025 - 10 SLa 687/24
The facts of the case:
The plaintiff, who has been employed by the defendant for over two decades, sees himself as the victim of an escalating labour conflict. The severely disabled plaintiff was increasingly exposed to disputes with his colleagues at work. He refers to Repeated harassment at the workplacemanipulated keyboards, glued locks, even rotten fruit on his desk. On the other hand, the staff accused the plaintiff of having an unacceptable working relationship and jeopardising the working atmosphere. In the end, it came to a Collection of signatures in which 18 employees, including one of the defendant's trainees, threatened to resign if the plaintiff was not dismissed immediately. After the defendant had consulted the works council and the integration office, it dismissed the plaintiff. extraordinary. He argued that the collection of signatures and numerous other transfer applications showed that industrial peace was massively jeopardised. The plaintiff immediately defended himself and applied for a declaration that the dismissal was invalid and for his continued employment until the conclusion of the proceedings. At first instance, the plaintiff was upheld by the labour court. The defendant then lodged an appeal with the Lower Saxony Labour Court.
The decision of the LAG:
The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff - the termination is invalid.
Essentially, the Chamber had to deal with the question of whether the case at hand was a "Justified termination under pressure" was acting. The judges in Lower Saxony did not consider these conditions to be met and found that the employer should have taken a protective stance towards the employee. Apart from the pressurised situation, the court was also able to no important reason within the meaning of §626 I BGB that could have justified the termination.
Justification:
A so-called "pressurised termination" occurs when third parties under Threat of disadvantages The employer can demand the dismissal of a specific employee on behalf of the employer. A distinction must be made between two groups of cases in particular. On the one hand, those cases in which the third party's request to the employer objectively justified is. In these cases, it is at the employer's discretion whether to dismiss for personal reasons or behavioural reasons. However, the court did not consider the requirements of this case group to be met. This means that a "pressurised dismissal" remains possible, but only under more difficult conditions for the employer. The chamber emphasised that the employer could no longer simply comply with the employees' request. The judgement states verbatim in this regard: "Due to his duty of care under the employment contract, he must protect the employee concerned and make every reasonable effort to dissuade the workforce from their threat. Dismissal can only be justified if there is nevertheless a prospect of behaviour, e.g. strike or mass dismissal, and this threatens serious economic damage for the employer." The judges specifically criticised the fact that the defendant had failed to protect the plaintiff. Secondly, in the present case, it could by no means be assumed that the employer itself expected serious disadvantages, as the defendant, for its part, offered the plaintiff a mediation procedure even after becoming aware of the new developments "in order to bring about solutions for the betterment of all parties involved". The defendant's argument that the dismissal was due to pressure was therefore unsuccessful.
Conclusion and practical tips:
A judgement from which several conclusions can be drawn. For employers, the situation of a "Pressure cancellation" be it justified or not, is never pleasant. Nevertheless, it is important to consider what behaviour can have legal consequences. It is worth noting, in particular, whether the employee actually commits such serious errors that the request of the workforce is considered objectively justified appears. If this is the case, the employer can issue a Discretionary decision are made. This makes it clear that the employer does not have to take responsibility for the mistakes or "incompatibility" of an employee, should he therefore Economic disadvantages for example because of the threat of redundancy. Conversely, if the threats are "unjustified", the employer is entitled to a Duty to protect to. It is not only expected, but even legally required, that the employer protects the employee in such cases and initially does everything possible to dissuade the employee from their threat. If he does not do this and issues a dismissal at an early stage, this cannot be upheld, as the judgement shows. In this situation, an employer is expected to first try to save or restore industrial peace. Only if there is a threat of serious economic disadvantages and the efforts already undertaken no success promise, the employer can give notice of termination and thus comply with the request of the workforce.
