Not Every Error in a Mass Layoff Notification Leads to the Invalidity of the Dismissal
Update Employment Law July 2026
BAG Press Release No. 26/26 – Judgment of 25 June 2026 – 6 AZR 7/26
The proper filing of a mass layoff notification pursuant to Section 17 of the German Protection Against Dismissal Act (Kündigungsschutzgesetz – KSchG) is one of the key formal requirements in larger workforce reduction projects. Errors in the notification procedure can render all dismissals issued invalid – a risk of considerable practical significance, particularly in the context of insolvency and restructuring. In practice, the question regularly arises whether minor inaccuracies in the information provided in the mass layoff notification already lead to the invalidity of the subsequent dismissals. A recent judgment of the Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht – BAG) of 25 June 2026 (6 AZR 7/26) provides welcome clarity on this issue.
Facts of the Case
The claimant was employed as a machine setter and operator at a lock manufacturer and machine builder (the subsequent debtor). In November 2024, insolvency proceedings were opened over the debtor’s assets and the defendant was appointed as insolvency administrator.
The insolvency administrator informed the works council established at the debtor’s premises about the intended plant closure and the dismissal of all remaining employees. On 25 February 2025, a reconciliation of interests (Interessenausgleich) was concluded. Subsequently, the defendant filed the mass layoff notification with the competent employment agency (Agentur für Arbeit) and, after its receipt, terminated the claimant’s employment relationship effective 31 May 2025.
In the notification, the defendant had stated the intention to issue 34 dismissals. In fact, however, only 31 or 32 dismissals were actually carried out. The claimant argued that the dismissal was invalid due to contradictory or erroneous information provided to the works council and/or the employment agency regarding the number of employees to be laid off.
Decision
The labour court of first instance had upheld the claim; the regional labour court (Landesarbeitsgericht) dismissed it. The claimant’s appeal on points of law (Revision) was unsuccessful. The disputed dismissal thus terminated the employment relationship effective 31 May 2025.
Key Issue: Compliance with the Purpose of the Notification Procedure
The BAG clarified that the notification procedure to be carried out before a mass layoff is intended to enable the competent employment agency to seek solutions within a period of 30 days to the problems raised by the intended dismissals. If the employer makes errors in the notification that do not conflict with this search for solutions and thus with the purpose of the notification procedure, the notification – depending on the circumstances of the individual case – satisfies the requirements of the Mass Layoff Directive (MERL).
The fact that the defendant had indicated a slightly higher number of employees to be dismissed in the mass layoff notification than were actually dismissed does not, in the BAG’s view, constitute a material error in the notification that would lead to the invalidity of the dismissal. The employment agency is not impaired in its task of mitigating the negative consequences of mass layoffs, as it can, on this basis, prepare for placing the employees to be laid off and review labour market policy measures. In such a case, the notification still ensures lawful action by the labour administration. It is therefore still proper and thus valid despite the objectively incorrect information.
The dismissal is not invalid due to an error in the mass layoff notification and therefore terminated the employment relationship upon expiry of the notice period.
Practical Guidance
The BAG’s decision provides an important clarification for practice: not every error in the information contained in a mass layoff notification necessarily leads to the invalidity of the subsequent dismissals. What is decisive is rather whether the error impairs the purpose of the notification procedure – i. e., the search for solutions by the employment agency. Minor deviations in the number of employees to be laid off “upwards” are therefore harmless, as they do not hinder the labour administration in its task.
In the context of restructurings and plant closures, this can provide relief for employers: provided that the consultation procedure was properly conducted and the notification fulfils the purpose of the procedure overall, minor inaccuracies in the number of announced layoffs do not lead to the invalidity of the dismissals. Nevertheless, it remains advisable to exercise the utmost care when preparing the mass layoff notification and to thoroughly review the information – in particular regarding the number of affected employees – before submission.
The judgment only indicates that, in individual cases involving only minor errors, the notification is not defective. In cases of serious misstatements, the invalidity of the notification and thus of the dismissals should still be assumed.
The full reasons for the decision are not yet available. It can be expected that they will contain further guidance on the purpose of the notification and the associated obligations of the employer.
