BAG: Termination effective despite formal error in mass layoff notification

The case involved a machine setter and operator who has been working for a key manufacturer and machine builder since 2016. The company produced and sold, among other things, key blanks, locking cylinders, locking systems and key cutting machines, but had to file for insolvency at the beginning of November 2024. The later defendant was appointed as insolvency administrator.

He informed the three-member works council “about his intention to close the company and lay off all remaining employees,” according to a press release.

Wrong number in mass layoff notice…

After the parties agreed on a reconciliation of interests on February 25, 2025, a mass layoff notice was filed with the employment agency. According to the BAG, it said that 34 layoffs or terminations were intended. In fact, 31 or 32 employees were later terminated.

After receipt of the notification, the employment relationship with the plaintiff was also terminated by letter dated February 26, 2025 as of May 31, 2025. He received the document on February 28, 2025 and sued.

The man claimed in court that his dismissal was invalid “due to contradictory or incorrect information provided to the works council or the employment agency about the number of employees to be dismissed”.

After the dismissal protection lawsuit before the labor court was successful, the Hamm State Labor Court changed the judgment and dismissed the lawsuit. With his appeal before the Federal Labor Court (BAG), the plaintiff continued to pursue his legal opinion – but was also unsuccessful. According to the Erfurt judges, the employment relationship was legally terminated on May 31, 2025.

…can remain harmless

In its decision, the Sixth Senate initially referred to the purpose of the notification procedure for a mass dismissal. This supports the responsible employment agency in the task of “looking for solutions to the problems associated with the intended layoffs within a period of 30 days”.

However, if errors occur “that do not conflict with this search for a solution and thus the purpose of the notification procedure, the notification still satisfies the aim of the notification procedure and thus the requirements of the Collective Redundancies Directive (MERL)”.

This means: The blocking period for terminations mentioned in Section 18 KSchG (for finding alternatives to termination) also begins in this case when the employment agency receives the notification and the employment relationship ends when the notice period expires.

In the specific case, the Senate therefore considered it to be proven that specifying a slightly too high number of employees who are to be dismissed as part of the mass layoff does not affect the employment administration in its task of limiting the negative consequences of the mass layoff. She could still check whether the employees at risk of dismissal could be placed.

Overall, according to the BAG, the advertisement “is therefore still correct and therefore effective despite the objectively incorrect information”.

Accordingly, the termination remains effective. Finally, the insolvency administrator “carried out the consultation process properly” and “terminated it before filing the report”.