BAG ruling: Fixed-term employment permissible despite works council mandate
In its ruling of June 18, 2025, the Federal Labor Court (BAG) made a significant decision for labor law practice (Federal Labor Court, judgment of June 18, 2025 - 7 AZR 50/24). The central question was whether the fixed-term nature of an employment relationship remains permissible even if the employee in question was elected to the works council during the term of the contract. The case was brought by an employee of a logistics company whose fixed-term employment contract had not been extended. In the meantime, he had been elected to the works council and claimed that this activity should have protected him from the termination of his fixed-term employment contract.
The judgment of the Federal Labor Court
The BAG dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and clarified: An effectively fixed-term employment contract remains legally permissible even if the employee is elected to the works council during this time. Election to the committee does not automatically lead to an entitlement to a permanent employment contract. The only decisive factor is whether the fixed-term contract meets the legal requirements of the Part-Time and Fixed-Term Employment Act (TzBfG) - which was undisputed in this case.
Of particular relevance was the question of whether the non-renewal of the contract constituted unlawful discrimination due to the works council activity. Here, too, the court made a clear decision: discrimination can only be assumed if there are concrete indications that the employer's decision was made solely or predominantly because of the mandate. In this specific case, however, the plaintiff was unable to substantiate this. The employer had clearly demonstrated that operational considerations and personal performance aspects were decisive for the decision.
Significance for practice
The ruling is of great importance for employers as well as for works council members in fixed-term employment relationships. For works council members, it clarifies that the transfer to a permanent employment relationship cannot be enforced by the mandate itself. At the same time, however, the BAG also signals that targeted discrimination on the grounds of works council activity remains unlawful and can - if proven - trigger claims for damages. Employers, on the other hand, can rely on the fundamental effectiveness of objectively justified fixed-term contracts, even for committee members, but should make their decision-making processes transparent and well documented in order to prevent potential accusations of discrimination.
Classification and outlook
With its decision, the BAG is consistently pursuing its previous line. In previous rulings, the court had already emphasized that works constitution law does not establish an independent entitlement to a reduction in the term of office. At the same time, it remains the case that there is a prohibition of discrimination under Section 78 BetrVG, which only applies, however, if a causal connection between the mandate and the discrimination is proven. In labor law consulting practice, the ruling once again shows how important it is to justify personnel decisions in a comprehensible manner - especially when works council members are affected.
