{"id":12549,"date":"2025-11-29T15:32:23","date_gmt":"2025-11-29T15:32:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/?p=12549"},"modified":"2025-11-29T15:33:20","modified_gmt":"2025-11-29T15:33:20","slug":"ausserordentliche-kuendigung-eines-kraftfahrers-wegen-drohung-mit-leistungszurueckhaltung","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/extraordinary-dismissal-of-a-driver-for-threatening-to-withhold-services\/","title":{"rendered":"Extraordinary dismissal of a driver for threatening to withhold services"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/span>Herne Labour Court of 23.07.2025 (5 Ca 466\/25)<\/span><\/h2>\n

<\/span>When words become a stumbling block: A judgement from Herne and its lessons<\/span><\/h2>\n

Sometimes a labour court case is like a snapshot of an everyday working life that many people don't know - but which is representative of challenges that can occur anywhere. This was also the case in this case, which ended up before the Herne Labour Court. It involved a driver, a heavy goods transport, a phone call just before the construction site - and a statement that ultimately ended his employment.<\/p>\n

The plaintiff had been employed as a driver since 2020, often for demanding transports, sometimes also in winter service. Over the years, there were various additions to the employment contract, disagreements about company car use, bonuses and Overtime<\/a>. But all that became secondary when a scene occurred in March 2025 that the court later categorised as an \u201eunlawful threat\u201c.<\/p>\n

<\/span>The core accusation: additional remuneration or no transport?<\/span><\/h2>\n

On 13 March 2025, the driver had transported an overwidth load. Shortly before reaching the construction site, he spoke to the dispatcher on the phone - and according to the witness, the driver explained that he only wanted to continue the journey if he received an additional payment of 200 euros (e.g. as a petrol voucher). In the end, the question of whether he actually lacked authorisation for the transport did not play a decisive role. It was not a question of whether he should have been allowed to drive - but how he had tried to exert influence<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The court considered it proven that the plaintiff had made the delivery dependent on a special payment. And this was precisely the problem: the delivery was his contractual obligation. The court considered the linking of this obligation with an additional payment not provided for in the contract to be a threat intended to put the defendant under pressure.<\/p>\n

This scene may seem inconspicuous. A phone call, two people with different points of view, a moment of tension. But in labour law, it's not just what someone says that counts - but how it appears objectively. And it was clear to the court that the plaintiff was threatening the company with serious harm, namely the cancellation or delay of a cost-intensive transport operation.<\/p>\n

Especially in logistics, where construction sites, time slots and coordination are closely interlinked, such an intervention can have major consequences.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Why the termination without notice was upheld<\/span><\/h2>\n

According to Section 626 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB), an employer can terminate an employment contract without notice if there is good cause and it is unreasonable to expect the employer to continue the employment relationship. The court therefore conducted a two-stage review:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Is the behaviour in itself suitable to constitute good cause?<\/strong>
    Yes - threats aimed at economic disadvantages are clear breaches of duty.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Is the continuation of the employment relationship unreasonable in the specific case?<\/strong>
    Also yes - from the court's point of view, the breach of duty was so serious that even a     Warning letter<\/a> would no longer have been an appropriate response.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Labour Court made it clear:
    A driver bears a great deal of responsibility - for transport goods, for an expensive vehicle, for road safety. And they are also particularly dependent on the relationship of trust with their employer. Anyone who tries to link a compulsory benefit with a special payment in this context is jeopardising this trust in the long term.<\/p>\n

    It is interesting that the court expressly left open whether the transport was actually subject to authorisation. Even if the driver subjectively believed that he was not allowed to drive without authorisation, he was not allowed to link this to his own claim.<\/p>\n

    <\/span>And what about the works council? An accusation without ground<\/span><\/h2>\n

    During the trial, the plaintiff argued that his dismissal was a reaction to the fact that he had mentioned the word \u201eworks council\u201c in a WhatsApp group weeks earlier. He had thus suggested the establishment of a works council. The court examined this submission, but found no evidence of a connection between this statement in December 2024 and the dismissal in March 2025.<\/p>\n

    No evidence, no temporal connection, no concrete statements. The mere allegation was not sufficient. Thus, a possible violation of the prohibition of termination under Section 612a BGB was also ruled out.<\/p>\n

    <\/span>The many ancillary claims - and why they failed<\/span><\/h2>\n

    The case was not just an unfair dismissal case. The plaintiff had asserted numerous claims:<\/p>\n