The employee who had been given notice wanted to continue using his company car until the end of his notice period. That was worth a lot of money. (Photo: © fuzzbones/123RF.com)
Read aloud:
A clause in the employment contract stipulated that employees would automatically be placed on paid leave after a dismissal. The Federal Labor Court declared it invalid.
A clause in the employment contract according to which the boss can require his employees to resign after a certain period of time is not permissible. Termination with continued payment of salary release "Allowed," doesn't sound too bad, does it? However, the reason for the dispute was that the dismissed employee also had his... Company cars I had to return it immediately. The clause is... ineffective, because it unfairly disadvantages the employee, the Federal Labour Court ruled.
A sales representative drove a company car, which he was also allowed to use privately. His employment contract stated that the employer could provide him with a company car "upon or after the pronouncement of a Termination – regardless of which side” under Continued payment of the salary release may. The use of the company car According to the clause, he could revoked, when the employee is released from the obligation to perform work.
The man resigned, whereupon the boss immediately sent him home and demanded the Return the car. The dismissed employee demanded compensation for the period from August to November 2024 due to the loss of the company car. Loss of use compensation of 510 euros gross per month. He considered the contract clause unlawful and took legal action.
The labor court did not rule in his favor, but the regional labor court (LAG) did.
Operations management
Operations management
Operations management
The Federal Labour Court (BAG), as the court of last resort, confirmed the Ineffectiveness of the exemption clause, because they the employee unreasonably disadvantageoust in the sense of des Section 307 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB). The employee's constitutionally protected right to continue working is more important than the employer's interest in granting leave. "The clause deprives the employee of the possibility of asserting a heightened interest in employment in individual cases," the Federal Labor Court (BAG) stated verbatim.
However, the regional labor court did not properly examine whether this concrete Fall notwithstanding the contractual clause – others, special reasons there were those who nevertheless granted a leave of absence justified. Therefore, the Federal Labour Court referred the case back so that the lower court could review it again and make a new decision.
Federal Labour Court, judgment of 25 March 2026, 5 AZR 108/25
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)!
Newsletter
1 Comment
Write a comment