Eyes open when sending the termination-which used to be true, no more applies today or the decline of the registration registered
In the event of a dispute over the receipt of a written termination, a letter from Deutsche Post AG in combination with an submission document from the post office and a shipment status is not sufficient as evidence of the first appearance that the notice of termination has received the recipient. The Federal Labor Court (BAG) clarified this with its judgment of January 30, 2025 - 2 AZR 68/24.
Facts
The parties to the employment contract (most recently) argued whether a termination of the defendant has dissolved the employment relationship between them by letter dated July 26, 2022. The employee has been working as an office hours aid since May 2021 in the employer's ophthalmologist's office. This terminated the employment relationship with a letter dated March 14, 2022, extraordinarily without notice, alternatively neat. The employee raised the dismissal protection lawsuit against this and pointed out her existing pregnancy. The labor court later found that the employment relationship of the employment contract parties was not dissolved by this termination. The responsible regional council, by decision of July 25, 2022, gave the employer approval to terminate the employment relationship with the employee. As part of the dismissal protection proceedings that were still initiated at the time, the employer referred to the fact that she had terminated the employment relationship of the employee again extremely, otherwise. The employee denied the access of this letter of termination. As far as the revision procedure is of interest, the employee has requested that the employment relationship between the employer's termination of July 26, 2022 was not terminated between the employment contract parties. The employer requested that the lawsuit be dismissed and said that the employment relationship had ended with the access of the letter of July 26, 2022. The employee did not attack this termination within the deadline of § 4 sentence 1 KSchG. The employer's U and K employees would have put the letter of termination together in an envelope. After that, Ms. U brought the envelope to the post office and personally abandoned there on July 26, 2022 at 3:35 p.m. According to the so -called shipment status available on the Internet, the letter with the corresponding shipment number of the employee was delivered on July 28, 2022. In this respect, there is an apparent evidence that is not shaken by the workers' lump sum, even if - the employer - because of the meantime - due to the period of time, within whom Deutsche Post AG grants the copy of an extradition document, she cannot submit one. Finally, the State Labor Court misjudged that some indications would speak that the workers' dispute was unlawful. The labor court dismissed the lawsuit - as far as the revision of interest - the state labor court granted it. With her revision, the employer continues to pursue her application for action.
Decision
The BAG agreed with the lower court: the employment relationship was not ended with termination of July 26, 2022 without notice or in the alternative. The employer has not proven to access the termination. According to the constant case law of the BAG and the Federal Court of Justice, a embodied declaration of intent is due to absenteeism as soon as it gets into the actual power of disposal of the recipient. The employer bears the burden of proof and proof for the receipt of the letter of termination. However, she was unable to prove to the employee's letter of termination in the employee's house letter box. The postman could not be determined and thus failed as a witness. There is no apparent evidence in favor of the employer, since the delivery receipt and the shipment status do not provide sufficient evidence for access. "Since the sending of his access cannot be provided by sending a letter, the delivery receipt for the question of access is irrelevant," said the judgment of the BAG literally. According to the Erfurt judges, the broadcast status does not offer a sufficient statement for access and do not indicate who should have been delivered - personally to the recipient, to another person in his household or by throw -in into the house letter box? According to BAG, the employer failed to request the copy of an extradition document as proof, which would have been possible within a period of 15 months in which Deutsche Post AG saved the copies. Without a delivery document there is practically no way to lead the apparition evidence. The employer's procedural complaints were not considered throughout.
Practical tip
This judgment again shows how important a precise and legally secure preparation and execution of termination in labor law is. Employers should therefore check their processes when pronouncing dismissals and best hand over disclosures personally or by messengers (which of course also knows the content of the letter and documented this as well as the place and time of delivery), while employees should know and use their rights in the event of doubt about the termination of termination. The safest way is the throw -in into the house letter box through a personally known messenger, which can then appear as a witness. The LAG said in his judgment: "In fact, the view, which is believed to be the most legally secure delivery form, is still the insertion into the recipient's house letter box by personally known messenger, which can then be easily named as witnesses."
Federal Labor Court (BAG) with his judgment of January 30, 2025 - 2 AZR 68/24
