Anyone giving notice must not only have valid grounds for doing so; the notice must also be served in the correct formal manner. This is demonstrated by a recent ruling by the Berlin Labour Court, which declared two notices of termination issued by the same employer to be invalid, even though the alleged breaches of duty were apparently serious.
What had happened?
The employee in question had been employed as a department head and portfolio manager at the Pension Fund of the Berlin Dental Association (VZB) since 2017. Her duties included preparing investment decisions. The VZB alleges that she indirectly acquired shares in a trust company – via a company of her own – which itself operated within the VZB’s business sphere. The employer regarded this as a breach of her duties of loyalty under her employment contract and as a conflict of interest.
The VZB initially terminated the employment contract with immediate effect in mid-September 2025, or alternatively with notice to end in March 2026. A further notice of termination followed in November 2025.
Why did the dismissals fail?
The Berlin Labour Court declared both dismissals to be invalid, on different procedural grounds.
- Extraordinary termination without notice: In the case of termination without notice on serious grounds, a strict two-week time limit applies. The employer must act within two weeks of becoming aware of the grounds for termination. The VZB had failed to meet this deadline. The court therefore deemed the dismissal to be invalid, regardless of whether the allegation would have been justified on its merits.
- Termination with notice: In this case, the VZB failed to comply with the requirement to consult the staff council. Although the employer had sent the staff council a letter requesting consultation, it had issued the notice of dismissal before the staff council’s two-week period for responding had expired. Anyone who fails to involve the staff council in accordance with the rules risks the entire notice of dismissal being deemed invalid.
No right to continued employment despite an invalid notice of termination
It is interesting to note that, whilst the court found both notices of termination to be formally flawed, it nevertheless did not grant the portfolio manager provisional continued employment. The seriousness of the alleged breaches of duty meant that it would be unreasonable for the VZB to continue employing her until the end of the legal proceedings. Formal errors therefore do not always protect against the practical consequences of a dismissal.
What does this mean for employers and employees?
The judgement highlights a key problem in practice: even if an employer were justified in terminating an employment contract on the merits, the termination may be invalidated due to procedural errors. The two-week notice period for summary dismissal runs from the point at which the employer has sufficiently substantiated knowledge of the grounds for dismissal. Furthermore, the works council or staff council must be fully consulted within the prescribed time limit before the dismissal is given.
For employees, this ruling shows that it is worth checking the formalities carefully. Procedural errors can render a decision invalid, even if the substantive allegation is serious.
The judgement is not yet final. Both parties may lodge an appeal with the Berlin-Brandenburg Regional Labour Court. (Berlin Labour Court, judgement of 26 June 2026, ref. 22 Ca 13829/25)
If you have any questions regarding termination, notice periods and participation rights, it is advisable to seek advice on employment law on a case-by-case basis.
Source: Haufe: Human Resources
This article was created with the help of AI and has been editorially reviewed.
