Regional Labour Court Cologne, 12.03.2015, Ref.: 7 Sa 973/14
There are already some court decisions to the effect that the authorisation to use a company car privately ends at the end of the six-week period of continued remuneration in the event of illness.
From this point onwards, i.e. in the event of prolonged incapacity to work due to illness, the employer can therefore demand the company car from the employee (except in cases where the employment contract expressly stipulates that the employee may also use the company car beyond the six-week period)
But what about the period of a ban on employment, for example during maternity leave? The Regional Labour Court had to deal with this question in the decision discussed here.
Facts and point of contention
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant and received a gross monthly salary of € 2,000 as well as a company car for private use. In May 2012, both parties held salary discussions in which the plaintiff claimed to have agreed a salary increase of € 150 gross per month. The defendant, on the other hand, stated that this amount was paid as a "non-sickness bonus", depending on whether the plaintiff was not absent due to illness during a certain period.
In the appeal proceedings, the parties disputed the plaintiff's claim to payment of an additional € 150 gross for the months of February to May 2014. In addition, the defendant filed a counterclaim for payment of the costs of maintaining the company vehicle used by the plaintiff, which she had not returned despite being requested to do so during her maternity leave.
Decision of the Cologne Regional Labour Court
The Cologne Regional Labour Court ruled that the defendant's appeal was unfounded and confirmed the judgement of the Cologne Labour Court. It was determined that the plaintiff was entitled to a gross monthly salary of € 2,150 for the period from February to May 2014. The additional € 150 gross, which was paid regularly from June 2012, was not dependent on certain conditions. The defendant had not been able to substantiate that this was a bonus payment that was subject to conditions.
As the additional payments were made over a long period of time without any complaints, the defendant would have had to prove that the payment was linked to special circumstances. He did not succeed in doing so, not even on appeal.
Rejection of the counterclaim
The court also dismissed the defendant's counterclaim for payment of maintenance costs for the company car. The defendant demanded € 9 per calendar day for the period from 9 April to 24 June 2014, as the plaintiff had not returned the company car during her maternity leave.
The court ruled that the vehicle was also provided to the plaintiff for private use and that this constituted part of the remuneration in the form of remuneration in kind. This entitlement to private use continues to exist even during an employment ban such as maternity leave.
Conclusion
The Regional Labour Court confirmed that the plaintiff was entitled to the salary increase and rejected the defendant's claim for the costs of maintaining the company car. The defendant was unable to prove the payment of the €150 as a bonus, nor was there a claim to the return of the vehicle during maternity leave.
Source: Regional Labour Court Cologne
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, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or email us at info@mth-partner.de.
