Trainees are included and receive a company pension.

A company agreement granted all "employees" a pension. This also includes trainees, the Federal Labor Court has ruled.

Operating Agreements for operational purposes Pension provision (bAV), often work with very broad terms such as "Employees"The terms "employees" or "staff" are used. They do not specifically name or explicitly exclude individual groups. Therefore, the question often arises in practice: Do such rules also apply to... trainees, Or are they excluded because they don't yet have an "employment relationship in the strict sense"?

This question becomes particularly important when a Pension commitment terminated and the accumulation of claims is only possible for a limited time. Then the question arises whether, even during the Academic background such Expectations It was possible that the employee who was later transferred might still have rights under the old agreement. This had to be addressed by the... Federal Labor Court clarified.

The case

The trainee began his apprenticeship as a real estate agent on August 1, 2006; later, the employer hired him permanently. This employment relationship continues to this day. A collective bargaining agreement concluded with the works council has been in effect since June 1, 1989. company agreement over a company pension scheme (RO 89)She said "the Employees Employees who are employed for at least 50% of the collectively agreed working hours are entitled to a company pension and disability benefit. Further requirements – primarily an existing employment relationship and a minimum service period of ten years – only had to be met, according to the wording, upon the occurrence of the pensionable event.

Der Arbeitgeber ended the RO 89 effective January 31, 2009 and led to no new regulation.

You might also be interested in:

Operations management

When the works council is allowed to have a say in AI agents

Operations management

Anyone who attacks their boss deserves to be fired.

Operations management

Splitting parental leave? Protection against dismissal remains!

The real estate agent said that the RO 89 had already during his training This applied to him. He therefore had already done so before their termination. entitlements acquired. The employer saw things differently and said that the RO 89 was only intended for Employee, trainees are no The dispute involved favored employees. It went to court.

The judgment

The Federal Labour Court (BAG) ruled that the employee in the event of a pension claim Benefits of the company pension scheme after RO 89 gets. The RO 89 Include trainees as well. Already the text I'm in favor of it. The term "employee" means... Persons employed in the company. According to the legal definition in labor law, this also includes trainees, the Federal Labor Court (BAG) clarified. RO 89 contains neither a restriction to employees in the narrower sense nor an explicit exclusion of trainees.

According to the Federal Labour Court (BAG), the systematic structure also supports this interpretation. With the promise of a "company pension scheme," RO 89 refers to the legal definition of... Section 1 Paragraph 1 of the Company Pension Act ((BetrAVG) Employees within the meaning of the German Occupational Pensions Act (BetrAVG) are according to Section 17 para. 1 BetrAVG expressly including those involved in their vocational training Employees; the vocational training relationship is equivalent to an employment relationship.

Furthermore, the definition of "employee" under works constitution law applies to such rules. Section 5 Paragraph 1 of the Works Constitution Act (BetrVG), the trainee explicitly includes.

Anyone who wants to exclude trainees must make that clear.

From the addition "at least 50% of the collectively agreed working hours"can be done according to the BAG not The lower court concluded that only employees in the narrower sense are meant. The Federal Labor Court (BAG) interpreted it that way. It sees it differently. This criterion only refers to the amount of time spent working. It therefore excludes... not according to the type of contract It's not about the amount of time spent at work, but rather the extent of employment. Trainees also work in the company within a defined training framework; vocational school attendance does not change this.

According to the Federal Labor Court (BAG), the conditions mentioned in RO 89 (employment relationship and minimum service period at the time the pension becomes payable) do not affect the personal scope of the pension promise. They only regulate the Conditions for the later entitlement to benefits. For the Beginning The agreement requires the regulation no Employment relationship.

Also the Purpose According to the Federal Labor Court (BAG), RO 89 supports the inclusion of training periods: The regulation aims to Reward company loyalty. It makes no decisive difference whether this loyalty was demonstrated within an employment relationship or partially within an apprenticeship. This is particularly true here because the apprenticeship was directly followed by an employment relationship.

What happens after the company agreement is terminated?

A replacement-free Termination The company agreement is according to Section 77 Paragraph 5 BetrVG It is possible without a specific reason. However, the judges believe its effect is limited.

The termination will definitely lead to the pension fund being closed. new Employees after the termination date closed However, for persons who – like the plaintiff – already belonged to the group of beneficiaries, the following applies: Protection of acquired rights according to the three-stage examination scheme developed by the Federal Labour Court (BAG).

The entitlement remains valid

If the notice of termination – as in this case – contains no explanation of the consequences, the termination is usually understood to mean that the benefits acquired up to the time of termination are forfeited. Qualifying status "frozen" will be. A complete Elimination Previously acquired entitlements require special justification and do not come without a clear regulation. not into consideration.

Thus, the verdict of the federal judges was: Because the employee already had entitlements to the [benefit] before January 31, 2009 Company pension She had acquired, she remained despite the termination obtained.

Federal Labor Court, judgment of August 26, 2025, Ref. 3 AZR 283/24

The advisors at the Chambers of Crafts will be happy to help you with any legal questions!

DHB now also digital!Simply click here and register for the digital German Crafts Journal (DHB)!