{"id":11790,"date":"2025-06-22T08:26:29","date_gmt":"2025-06-22T08:26:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/?p=11790"},"modified":"2025-12-09T18:38:07","modified_gmt":"2025-12-09T18:38:07","slug":"arbeitsrecht-kuendigungsschutz-trotz-insolvenz-was-arbeitnehmer-wissen-sollten-urteil-des-lag-hamm-2-sa-630-10","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/labour-law-protection-against-dismissal-despite-insolvency-what-employees-should-know-judgement-of-the-lag-hamm-2-sa-630-10\/","title":{"rendered":"Labour law: Protection against dismissal despite insolvency? What employees should know - judgement of the LAG Hamm (2 Sa 630\/10)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Regional Labour Court (LAG) Hamm, Ref.: 2 Sa 630\/10, decision of 22.12.2010<\/p>\n

Insolvency proceedings regularly present employees with major uncertainties. Changes to operations are often announced and redundancies made. But does insolvency automatically mean that long-serving employees can be dismissed without further ado? An important ruling by the Hamm Regional Labour Court (LAG) (2 Sa 630\/10 of 22 December 2010) provides employees with clear answers to this question.<\/p>\n

<\/span>What had happened?<\/span><\/h2>\n

The plaintiff had worked for a company in the cold rolling industry for over 37 years. He was over 60 years old and could not be dismissed under a collective labour agreement (MTV) because he was over 55 years old and had worked for the company for more than ten years.<\/p>\n

After the company ran into financial difficulties and insolvency proceedings were opened, the insolvency administrator decided to lay off numerous employees. The plaintiff was dismissed despite his special protection against dismissal under the collective agreement, which he defended against in court.<\/p>\n

<\/span>How did the court rule?<\/span><\/h2>\n

The Hamm Regional Labour Court found that the plaintiff's dismissal was invalid. Decisive point: Although the ordinary termination of an employee who cannot be dismissed under a collective agreement can theoretically become permissible after the opening of insolvency proceedings (Section 113 InsO), it had to be taken into account here that the plaintiff could already be dismissed without notice before the opening of insolvency proceedings on the basis of a valid collective agreement.<\/p>\n

The court also emphasised that a dismissal is not automatically justified despite insolvency and despite a change in operations. The decisive factor is whether there really is no other reasonable job. It was precisely here that the employer was unable to sufficiently demonstrate that continued employment of the experienced employee was impossible.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Practical significance: What does this judgement mean for employees and employers?<\/span><\/h2>\n

<\/span>For employees:<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n