The hurdles remain high for „pressure dismissal“

Lower Saxony Higher Labor Court of 13.05.2025, Ref. 10 SLa 687/24

In a recent ruling, the Higher Labor Court of Lower Saxony dealt with the so-called "pressure dismissal". This concerned the question of whether an employer may dismiss an employee if third parties - for example colleagues - threaten to disadvantage the employer if the employee is not dismissed. The ruling clarifies the conditions under which such a dismissal is lawful and what obligations the employer has.

What is a „pressure dismissal“?

A „pressure dismsisal“ occurs when third parties, usually other employees, demand that the employer dismiss a particular employee. They usually threaten the employer with disadvantages. Such disadvantages can be, for example, strikes, mass dismissals by the employees or other disruptions to business operations. The employer is then under pressure to comply with the request in order to avoid economic damage.

The court distinguishes between two groups of cases:

1. The third party's request is objectively justified by the conduct of the employee concerned or by a reason relating to the employee personally. In this case, it is at the discretion of the employer to issue a dismissal for personal or behavioral reasons.
2. If there is no objective justification, only dismissal for operational reasons can be considered. Particularly strict requirements apply here.

Duties of the employer in the event of termination under pressure

In this case, the court found that the employer had not provided sufficient evidence to justify a dismissal for conduct or personal reasons.

The court emphasized that in the case of a "genuine" (operational) termination under pressure, the employer may not simply give in to pressure from the workforce or third parties. Instead, the employer is obliged to protect the employee concerned. This means that the employer must do everything reasonable to dissuade the workforce or third parties from their threat. This includes, for example, talks, attempts at conciliation or mediation. Only if these measures remain unsuccessful and significant disadvantages for the company are still to be expected can dismissal be justified. However, dismissal must then be the only means of averting the impending damage.

In this case, the court found that the employer had not made sufficient attempts to resolve the conflict. Although there were offers of mediation, these were either insufficient or the receipt of such an offer by the employee concerned was effectively denied. Other measures, such as internal discussions or a clear position by the management against discriminatory behavior, were also not taken sufficiently. The court therefore found that the employer had not fulfilled its duty of care.

Application for termination by the employer

Another important point of the ruling concerns the so-called application for termination. If an ordinary dismissal is ineffective, the parties can (under certain conditions) apply to the court to terminate the employment relationship in return for payment of a severance payment. In the present case, however, an extraordinary termination with a social expiry period was negotiated. The employer can only make such an application (as described) if it is an ordinary termination. In the case of an extraordinary dismissal that later proves to be invalid, this right is exclusively available to the employee. The wording of the law is clear in this respect. According to the court, this also applies if the extraordinary notice of termination was given with an expiry period, i.e. a period that corresponds to the (theoretically applicable) ordinary notice period. This may be necessary if the possibility of ordinary termination, as in the present case, is excluded by the collective agreement. The legislator had deliberately decided against equalizing ordinary and extraordinary termination. As a result, the employer was prevented from submitting such a termination request in the present case.

Consequences for practice

The ruling makes it clear that employers must proceed very carefully when dismissing employees under pressure. They must not give in prematurely to pressure from colleagues or third parties, but must actively try to resolve the conflict and protect the employee concerned. Only when all reasonable measures have been exhausted and there is still a threat of significant disadvantages for the company can a dismissal be justified. In addition, employers are barred from applying for dissolution in the event of ineffective extraordinary dismissals.