Krefeld Labour Court, 18.09.2015, Ref.: 2 Ca 1992/13
An employment relationship can be terminated for good cause in accordance with Section 626 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB) without observing a notice period if there are facts on the basis of which the terminating party cannot reasonably be expected to continue the employment relationship until the end of the notice period, taking into account all the circumstances of the individual case and weighing up the interests of both parties to the contract.
Such a reason exists, for example, if a public service employee demands, is promised or accepts benefits for or in the performance of contractual tasks.
In this case, the employee is liable to prosecution for accepting an advantage in accordance with Section 331 (1) SGB or bribery in accordance with Section 332 (1) SGB.
As he is simultaneously violating his obligations under Section 3 (2) TVöD and the interests of the public employer, he regularly gives his employer a reason to dismiss him without notice.
In the Krefeld Labour Court case discussed here, an employee of the public order office had received cheap food from a snack bar operator and in return had not taken the parking violations of the snack bar operator's customers so seriously.
Facts of the Case:
The 51-year-old plaintiff in these unfair dismissal proceedings had been employed by the city as a public order officer since May 2009.
Employee of the security service had eaten at a reduced price in the snack bar
As part of this activity, the plaintiff drove to a snack bar in his company car several times in January and February 2013 in order to be able to eat there at significantly more favourable conditions than those that generally applied. The plaintiff only paid 5 euros for the food he ordered there.
In return, he let parking offenders off without a fine
The plaintiff only received this benefit because, in return, he only wrote up parking offences in the snack bar area after the break and only after announcing and consulting with the snack bar operator
Due to these allegations, among others, the defendant city then dismissed the plaintiff for accepting benefits/corruptibility by extraordinary termination without notice, alternatively by ordinary termination with due notice.
After receiving notice of termination, the employee filed an action for unfair dismissal
The plaintiff filed an action for unfair dismissal against these dismissals with the Krefeld Labour Court.
Decision of the Krefeld Labour Court
Labour court deemed termination without notice invalid
The Krefeld Labour Court ruled that at least the termination without notice by the city was invalid.
Any employee in the public sector who commits an offence of accepting benefits in accordance with Section 331 (1) SGB or bribery in accordance with Section 332 (1) SGB is in breach of their duties and is acting contrary to the interests of the public employer. The employee therefore regularly gives his employer a reason to dismiss him without notice.
However, in the present case it could only be proven that the plaintiff and his colleagues had received meals at reduced prices, but the defendant could not prove that there was an agreement between the snack bar operators and the employees of the security service to the effect that the plaintiff and his colleagues had spared the customers of the respective snack bar from a warning fine in return.
The termination without notice was also not justified as an extraordinary termination on suspicion. According to established case law of the Federal Labour Court, the suspicion that the contractual partner may have committed a criminal offence or a serious breach of duty may constitute good cause for extraordinary dismissal. However, the suspicion in this regard must be urgent, i.e. there must be a high probability that the dismissed employee has committed the offence or breach of duty. This was not the case here.
However, the alternatively declared termination with notice had become effective
However, the employment relationship between the parties had been terminated by the defendant's dismissal in the alternative with due notice. This was because the ordinary dismissal of the defendant was socially justified as a dismissal for behavioural reasons. A dismissal for conduct-related reasons is socially justified if there are circumstances in the behaviour of an employee which, on a reasonable assessment of the mutual interests of the contracting parties, make the dismissal appear reasonable and appropriate. This was the case here.
The dismissal was also proportionate. The principle of proportionality is derived from the element of "conditional" in Section 1 (2) sentence 1 KSchG in the case of dismissal with due notice. According to this, a dismissal is only necessary (ultima ratio) if it could not have been avoided by milder measures. This was also the case here.
Source: Krefeld Labour 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.