{"id":11935,"date":"2025-08-10T14:36:25","date_gmt":"2025-08-10T14:36:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/?p=11935"},"modified":"2025-08-10T14:36:25","modified_gmt":"2025-08-10T14:36:25","slug":"lag-koeln-11-sa-735-20-urteil-zu-abmahnungen-zulagen-und-aenderungskuendigungen","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/lag-koeln-11-sa-735-20-judgement-on-warnings-allowances-and-termination-notices\/","title":{"rendered":"LAG Cologne, 11 Sa 735\/20 - judgement on warnings, bonuses and dismissals with notice of change"},"content":{"rendered":"

Sometimes labour law feels like a game of cards: the Warning letter<\/a> is the yellow card, cancellation would be the red card. In between lies an area in which employers want to change conditions - the Change notice<\/a>. In June 2021, the Cologne Regional Labour Court (LAG) ruled on a case that illustrates precisely this area of conflict: two warnings, the revocation of a bonus, plus an extraordinary dismissal with notice of change - and the question of which of these will ultimately bear fruit.<\/p>\n

Brief background: A long-standing shift supervisor in a warehouse (more than 100 employees) received two warnings on 13 November 2019: one for alleged poor performance in the inventory management of pallets, the other for a conversation that was said to have disturbed the peace in the company. One week later, on 21 November 2019, an extraordinary termination notice followed: immediate downgrading to a helper position with significantly lower pay. At the same time, the employment contract included a personal compensation allowance (\u20ac 110 per month), which was subject to revocation - the revocation was declared on 23 December 2019. The Cologne Labour Court largely ruled in favour of the employee; the Cologne Higher Labour Court confirmed this on 16 June 2021. Not admitted.<\/p>\n

Why is this exciting - and practically relevant? Because the judgement acts like a seismograph, showing where employers need to work properly when issuing warnings, bonuses and notices of termination and where employees have realistic points of attack. And because it goes to the heart of the matter: diligence.<\/p>\n

<\/span>What it was about in legal terms - clearly explained<\/span><\/h3>\n

Cautions<\/strong>They are not just a raised index finger. Warnings document an alleged breach of duty, remind employees to take remedial action and threaten consequences. They are also often the precursor to dismissal for behavioural reasons. They must therefore be precise, correct and proportionate. The burden of proof for correctness lies with the employer.<\/p>\n

Change notice<\/strong>The employer terminates the previous employment relationship and offers to continue it under different conditions (different job, less money, different place of work). Extraordinary termination - i.e. without notice - is only possible in exceptional cases: the immediate change must be absolutely necessary, and a relevant warning is usually required beforehand.<\/p>\n

Revocation of an allowance<\/strong>Contractual clauses that withdraw allowances \"in the event of two warnings in 18 months\" are only as strong as the warnings themselves. If these are cancelled, the reason for revocation is often also cancelled. Furthermore, cancellation clauses must be fair and transparent.<\/p>\n

<\/span>What the LAG Cologne decided<\/span><\/h3>\n

The court removed the two warnings from the personnel file. removed<\/strong>:<\/p>\n