Rhineland-Palatinate Regional Labour Court, 23.12.2021, Ref. 5 Sa 231\/21<\/p>\n
Sometimes a single phone call is enough to set off a whole chain: a dispute about tone and contact, a sick note on Friday, a retroactive certificate on Monday - and shortly afterwards a Warning letter<\/a> plus an instruction to submit a medical certificate on the first day of illness in future. This was exactly the case before the Rhineland-Palatinate Regional Labour Court (judgement of 23.12.2021, Ref. 5 Sa 231\/21). Not a spectacle, but everyday life - and therefore groundbreaking. The judgement shows: Warning letters must be as precise as a well-cut key, and the obligation to provide a certificate from day one is not taboo, but covered by law - as long as it is not used arbitrarily.<\/p>\n An IT specialist who had been with the company for decades had a tense conversation with his future line manager. Days later, he called in sick on a Friday, went to the doctor on Monday and submitted a retroactive leave of absence. Certificate of incapacity for work<\/a> one. The employer reacted in two ways: it issued a Warning letter<\/a>, which bundled several reprimands into one letter, and from then on demanded the certificate from day one. The dispute in court centred on the removal of the warning letter from the Personnel file<\/a> and whether the immediate testing obligation is permissible.<\/p>\n The LAG ruled in two parts. Firstly: The warning must be removed from the personnel file. Secondly: The demand to be dismissed on the first Sick day<\/a> to submit a medical certificate is lawful.<\/p>\n At first glance, this combination seems paradoxical, but it is not. It follows two clear lines: Warnings need concrete facts and clear contours. The obligation to provide a medical certificate from day one, on the other hand, is based on Section 5 EFZG (Continued Remuneration Act), which gives the Employer<\/a> expressly permitted to request an earlier submission - without particular suspicion, but within the limits of fairness and equal treatment.<\/p>\n According to the court, the warning was too vague and in part factually incorrect. In essence, it was about a single, approximately 30-minute telephone call. The letter turned it into three \"incidents\" without clearly identifying the qualitative difference. In addition, it remained unclear which specific words were supposed to carry the alleged \"verbal abuse\". \"Loud, irritable, aggressive\" is unpleasant - but not yet a justiciable insult. Finally, the sick note itself was mentioned as a \"further incident\" without claiming that the employee was not actually unfit for work. However, the sick note itself is not a breach of duty.<\/p>\n The \"all-or-nothing\" principle is important: If a warning letter contains several allegations, not all of which are valid, it cannot remain partially valid. If not all points apply, the warning must be removed in its entirety.<\/p>\n The second part of the decision is based on Section 5 (1) sentence 3 EFZG. According to this, the employer may demand the submission of the medical certificate earlier than in the statutory standard case (the standard case is \"no later than the fourth calendar day\"). The law does not require any justification or suspicion. Limits exist where the exercise of rights becomes harassing, arbitrary or discriminatory. According to the court, this was not evident in the specific case. The temporal connection with a previously rejected request to work from home was not sufficient to assume an unauthorised reprimand.<\/p>\n The message behind this is sober but clear: the obligation to provide a certificate from day one is a legitimate organisational tool. Those who use it should do so transparently and uniformly - then it will also hold up in court.<\/p>\n You can think of labour law as a lock and key. The warning is a fine key: only if the teeth (facts, times, quotations) are exactly right does it open the door to further measures. If the cut is imprecise - unclear judgements, inflated accusations, missing details - the key does not work and the lock remains closed. The attestation requirement, on the other hand, is a master key that the law has expressly handed out. It fits - as long as it is not improperly inserted into doors for which it was never intended.<\/p>\n Warnings must be precise.<\/strong> Vague or partially incorrect letters must be removed completely.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n An incident remains an incident.<\/strong> Making three \"cases\" out of one phone call seems contrived and is open to attack.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Expression of opinion has limits - but it exists.<\/strong> A sharp tone of voice alone does not constitute verbal abuse.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Attestation from day one is permissible.<\/strong> \u00a7 Section 5 EFZG permits the earlier submission without suspicion - as long as it is not arbitrary.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Documentation decides.<\/strong> Those who document properly will prevail - on both sides.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Read the warning letter dissecting:<\/strong> Are the location, time, persons involved and literal<\/strong> Statements in it? Where there are only judgements, there is often no substance.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Save receipts:<\/strong> Emails, calendars, meeting notes, duty rosters, possible witnesses - everything that makes the actual process tangible.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n File a counterstatement in the personnel file:<\/strong> Brief, factual, without polemics. That creates a counterweight, even before a court decides.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Demand removal and sue if necessary:<\/strong> Vague or incorrect warnings must be removed; half-baked corrections are not enough.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Accept and implement compulsory attestation:<\/strong> If ordered from day one, consistently present a medical certificate. This will help you avoid side effects.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Craftsmanship before hectic:<\/strong> Formulate warnings with clear facts, precise citations and a clear breach of duty. Do not use a hodgepodge.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n No artificial \"multiple prolapse\":<\/strong> Do not split an event into several warning blocks just to create weight.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Hearing and minutes:<\/strong> Before issuing a warning, hold a dialogue, record the core statements and enclose supporting documents. This increases the stability considerably.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Make the attestation rule transparent:<\/strong> Briefly set out in writing (e.g. circular email, guideline) when the certificate is required, how it is to be submitted (eAU), who accepts it.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Apply uniformly:<\/strong> Do not use rules selectively. Equal treatment is the best protection against accusations of arbitrariness.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Document the incident:<\/strong> What happened? Who was there? What words were spoken? Make a note as soon as possible.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Check relevance:<\/strong> Is it about controllable behaviour or friction in tone? Not every annoyance can be cautioned.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Choose a clean mould:<\/strong> One accusation per warning; clear warning function; no \"shopping basket\" of displeasure.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Clarify communication:<\/strong> Obtain an opinion, keep it on file; remain objective in the event of differences of opinion.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Live by the rules:<\/strong> Compulsory attestation announced? Then implement it consistently - without exceptions based on sympathy.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n E<\/strong>s brings order to a frequent area of tension. Employees are protected from imprecise, inflated warnings. Employers receive confirmation that they have a legitimate management tool in the form of the obligation to provide a medical certificate from day one. Together, these two things force companies to do what is good for them anyway: clarity, transparency and a sense of proportion.<\/p>\n In the end, the message is surprisingly simple: if you work carefully, you win. A properly documented warning holds. So does a fairly communicated obligation to provide a certificate. And where both are effective, the number of escalations decreases. After all, the best labour law tool is the one you don't need in the first place - because the parties involved know where they stand and find the right language with each other.<\/p>\n 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.<\/strong>\u00a0Important 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.<\/p>\n If you need legal advice, please feel free to call us at\u00a00221 - 80187670<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0or send us an email at or send an email to info@mth-partner.de\u00a0info@mth-partner.de<\/strong><\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Rhineland-Palatinate Higher Labour Court removes an indefinite warning, but confirms the obligation to provide a certificate from day one. Result: Precision in warnings, transparent application of Section 5 EFZG, clear documentation and equal treatment prevent escalations in the long term.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":11618,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[35],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11937","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-arbeitsrecht-rechtsanwalt"],"yoast_head":"\n<\/span>What it was all about - briefly and clearly<\/span><\/h3>\n
<\/span>What the court decided<\/span><\/h3>\n
<\/span>Why the warning failed<\/span><\/h3>\n
<\/span>Why the obligation to provide a certificate from day one<\/span><\/h3>\n
<\/span>The picture behind it: Key and lock<\/span><\/h3>\n
<\/span>Key messages in plain language<\/span><\/h3>\n
\n
<\/span>What employees can do now<\/span><\/h3>\n
\n
<\/span>What employers should consider<\/span><\/h3>\n
\n
<\/span>A short roadmap for both sides<\/span><\/h3>\n
\n
<\/span>Why the judgement is encouraging<\/span><\/h3>\n