Short-term deprivation of liberty justifies extraordinary dismissal
The hurdles for justifying an extraordinary termination without notice are high. The conduct of the dismissed employee must make it unreasonable for the employer to continue the employment relationship until the end of the notice period. The question of whether a warning is necessary first arises before labor courts, particularly in the case of first-time breaches of duty.
The Siegburg Labor Court also had to clarify such a question in its decision of 11.02.2021 - Ref. 5 Ca 1397/20.
The facts of the case: Deprivation of liberty in the company toilet
The young plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a warehouse clerk in the warehouse from 01.09.2019. In January 2020, a colleague of the dismissed employee was in the toilet of the warehouse, which was locked from the inside. The plaintiff pushed a sheet under the door and hit the door in such a way that the key fell out of the lock onto the sheet and he was able to steal it. He left his colleague in the locked toilet and left. He left his colleague locked in for so long that he was forced to kick open the door of the toilet to free himself.
On 18.06.2020, the employer noticed the damaged toilet door. The employer then held individual discussions with the claimant and his colleagues and thus became aware of the incident. On the same day, the employer was dismissed without notice due to this incident. The plaintiff filed an action for unfair dismissal against this dismissal.
The reasons for the labor court's decision
With his conduct, the plaintiff irretrievably destroyed the relationship of trust with his employer. Whether or not the lock-in constituted a criminal deprivation of liberty under Section 239 StGB was not relevant to the decision. In any case, the plaintiff had temporarily deprived his colleague of his freedom to leave the restroom unhindered. In addition, he had caused him to damage the door in order to free himself. The damage to the door by the colleague is therefore also attributable to the plaintiff as the instigator. In addition, he concealed the damaged door from his employer and did not repair the damage for which he was responsible.
Due to this behavior, the employer could not reasonably be expected to continue the employment relationship until the end of the notice period. A prior warning to the plaintiff was also not necessary. His reckless behavior had entitled the defendant to extraordinary termination without notice even without prior warning. This behavior constitutes good cause pursuant to § 626 para. 1 BGB. The fact that the plaintiff had only been employed by the defendant since 01.09.2019 also had to be taken into account to the detriment of the plaintiff. Due to his young age, it could also be assumed that he would find a new job in the near future.
The employment relationship was therefore effectively terminated by the extraordinary termination of 18.06.2020. The action for unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed.
Conclusion on extraordinary termination
For the question of whether there is good cause within the meaning of Section 626 (1) BGB, it is irrelevant whether the conduct of the person concerned is also punishable under the German Criminal Code (StGB). It is only necessary that this conduct damages the relationship of trust with the employer to such an extent that it is no longer reasonable to expect the employment relationship to continue until the end of the notice period. In this case, a prior warning regarding the behavior in question may also be dispensable.
The plaintiff could in no way assume that his employer would tolerate him locking his colleague in the toilet until he freed himself by kicking in the door.
