Labour Court of Cologne, 14.11.2019, Case No. 8 Ca 4564/19
When a company is facing economic difficulties, it may lead to the outsourcing of certain departments. This often occurs when a company merges with or is acquired by another. In such cases, mass layoffs may follow, raising the question of how the remaining jobs will be allocated. The Dismissal Protection Act (KSchG) contains regulations that determine when a dismissal is considered invalid. According to § 1 I KSchG, a dismissal must not be socially unjustified. From the company’s perspective, the ideal outcome would be to retain only the most productive employees. However, social justification primarily considers criteria such as length of service, age, degree of disability, and dependents, rather than performance (see § 1 III KSchG). Companies thus face a conflict between wanting to retain high-performing employees and being obligated to continue employing those who are socially vulnerable. However, top performers often do not belong to the most socially vulnerable group. As a result, many top performers would have to be dismissed in a social selection process. To address this, the legislature has introduced a provision in § 1 III 2 KSchG that allows key performers to be excluded from the social selection process. Nonetheless, questions remain regarding the criteria for such exclusions.
In the following ruling, the Cologne Labour Court clarified that a social selection process cannot be completely omitted and that decisions cannot be based solely on performance. Furthermore, any planned reallocation of tasks must precede a business-related dismissal. A company cannot issue a dismissal first and plan later. The decision to dismiss must be based on a task reallocation that makes the employee’s role redundant, thereby justifying the dismissal.
The employer dismissed the employee for business-related reasons.
The plaintiff had been employed by the defendant in Cologne since 1990. In January 2019, the employer announced that the company would be acquired by another company, resulting in most jobs in Cologne being cut. Most employment contracts were set to be terminated by 31.12.19, with only a small number of employees being retained. Negotiations were conducted with the Works Council regarding a reconciliation of interests and the drafting of a social plan. These negotiations concluded successfully in May 2019.
Despite the conclusion of the reconciliation of interests, the local works council objected to the plaintiff's dismissal. The works council argued that a deadline stipulated in the reconciliation of interests had not been met. The employee finally filed an action for unfair dismissal to contest the validity of the dismissal.
The employee's arguments
The reconciliation of interests specified which parts of the business would remain open. It was determined that employment opportunities in other business areas would cease and that dismissals could be issued from a specific date. It also outlined the criteria for selecting employees for dismissal, including length of service, age, degree of disability, and dependents. The agreement also allowed for certain employees to be excluded from the social selection process under § 1 III 2 KSchG.
The participation rights of the works councils were also regulated. However, the local (Cologne) Works Council did not sign the reconciliation of interests, and the agreement did not include a list of names as required by § 1 IV KSchG.
In June 2019, the defendant informed the Works Council and employees about the planned dismissals. Additionally, the defendant initiated a consultation process with the General Works Council and the local Works Council. However, since the local Works Council could only meet on 28.06.19, the defendant suspended the process, claiming it had already concluded negotiations with the General Works Council. Nevertheless, on 19.06.2019, the local Works Council was formally consulted and given a list of employees to be dismissed and those to be retained. It was also noted that no social selection process had taken place between the employees selected for dismissal and those retained. The retained employees were chosen based on their special skills and qualifications. The plaintiff was among those dismissed.
The Works Council objected to the dismissal due to missed deadlines.
The local Works Council objected to the plaintiff’s dismissal, arguing that the three-week deadline between informing the Works Council and issuing the dismissal, as outlined in the reconciliation of interests, had not been met. It also argued that there were opportunities for the plaintiff’s continued employment. In June 2019, the defendant notified the Federal Employment Agency of the mass layoffs due to the closure of the Cologne site, claiming the consultation process had been completed.
The plaintiff subsequently filed a dismissal protection lawsuit regarding the dismissal received on 27.06.2019. The plaintiff argued that the dismissal was invalid due to being issued prematurely. The three-week period from informing the Works Council and the employees had not been adhered to. Additionally, the notification of mass layoffs to the Employment Agency was invalid, as the consultation process with the Works Council had not been completed, violating § 17 III 3 KSchG.
The plaintiff further argued that there was no valid business-related reason for the dismissal, as the need for her role would not cease on 31.12.19. At the very least, there were other positions within the company where she could be employed.
The employer did not conduct a social selection process.
The Cologne Labour Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff and declared the dismissal invalid. The court found that the dismissal was not socially justified, as both the operational necessity of the dismissal and the proper social selection were lacking.
The court emphasised that a dismissal for operational reasons is only permissible if the employment requirement for the dismissed employee no longer exists due to a business decision. The employer may not simply transfer the tasks of the dismissed employee to other employees without justifying this. A mere plan to reallocate tasks is not sufficient to justify a dismissal. In this case, however, the employer was unable to present any concrete measures for the reallocation of tasks. This indicated that the business decision to close the department was only concretised after the dismissal. However, such a "provisional dismissal" was inadmissible.
Lack of social selection as a further obstacle to dismissal
The court also ruled that the dismissal was invalid as no proper social selection had been carried out. The employer should have carried out a social selection between the dismissed employees and those who continued to be employed. This was also necessary if the continued employment was only temporary. However, the employer had decided solely on the basis of performance criteria and had disregarded the social aspects as stipulated in the KSchG.
It is true that the law stipulates that particular service providers may be excluded from the social selection. However, this only applies in exceptional cases. The employer was not able to sufficiently explain why the employees who were to be kept on should be considered to be high performers. A generalised assertion that they had special skills and knowledge was not sufficient to deviate from the legal requirements. The court also pointed out that the documentation submitted by the employer for social selection was inadequate.
Conclusion: Invalidity of the cancellation
In summary, the court ruled that the dismissal was socially unjustified and therefore invalid. The employer had neither proven that the dismissal was necessary for operational reasons nor had it carried out a proper social selection. Furthermore, the court found that the requirements for a reduced social selection pursuant to Section 1 (5) KSchG were not met, as the reconciliation of interests did not contain a list of names of the employees to be dismissed.
The judgement of the Cologne Labour Court emphasises the importance of a careful examination of the social criteria and proper justification of operational necessity in the case of dismissals for operational reasons. If these requirements are not met, as in this case, the dismissal is invalid.
Source: Employment Court Cologne
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. Important 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.
If you need legal advice, please feel free to call us at 0221 - 80187670 or send us an email at or send an email to info@mth-partner.de info@mth-partner.de