Regional Labour Court Düsseldorf, 04.11.2014, Ref.: 17 Sa 637/14
The purpose of dismissal under labour law is not to sanction a breach of employment contract, but to avoid the risk of further significant breaches of duty.
This means that the past breach of duty must still have a negative impact on the future. The prognosis principle applies here. A negative prognosis always exists if it can be concluded from the specific breach of contract and the resulting breach of contract that the employee will again breach the employment contract in the same or a similar manner in the future following a threat of termination.
A prior relevant warning is therefore generally required for an effective termination due to a breach of contract. This serves to objectify the negative prognosis.
If a proper warning has been issued and the employee breaches his contractual obligations again, it can generally be assumed that there will be further breaches of contract in the future.
In the above-mentioned case of the Düsseldorf Regional Labour Court, the court had to decide on appeal whether a bank employee who had violated the bank's internal regulations had been effectively dismissed without a warning.
1. Facts and Initial Situation
The plaintiff had been employed by the defendant bank since 2008 as the supervisor of two teams. In the period from 2010 to 2012, she made a total of 33 bookings from her mother's savings account, for which she had a general power of attorney. In the process, 29 entries were made to her own account, three to her mother's account and one to her daughter's account. These actions violated the bank's internal guidelines, which prohibit employees from acting decisively or in an advisory capacity in their own affairs.
2. Cancellation of the plaintiff
The bank became aware of the transactions through an enquiry by an heir and subsequently dismissed the plaintiff without notice and alternatively with notice. The plaintiff took legal action against this dismissal, whereupon the labour court ruled that the dismissals were invalid. The bank appealed to the Düsseldorf Regional Labour Court.
3. Decision of the Düsseldorf Regional Labour Court
The Regional Labour Court confirmed the decision of the court of first instance and found that the employment relationship was not terminated as a result of the dismissals. Although the plaintiff had violated the bank's internal regulations, her breach of duty was not deemed serious enough for termination. It was argued that a warning would have been a suitable and sufficient measure.
4. Legal justification
The decision centred on the so-called prognosis principle of the right of termination. The court came to the conclusion that, based on the facts of the case and the results of the oral hearing, it could not be assumed that a warning would have been unsuccessful. Therefore, there was no negative prognosis necessary for a termination that would have made further cooperation unreasonable.
Source: Düsseldorf Regional Labor Court
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.
