The question of whether the private charging of a hybrid car at work can justify termination without notice led to an exciting result in a case before the Duisburg Labor Court (judgment of 10.03.2023, Ref. 5 Ca 138/22). The decision is relevant for companies that want to implement and enforce clear rules on the use of company resources by employees*.
In this case, an employee had charged his hybrid car at the employer’s power socket. The company considered this to be a serious breach of trust and terminated the employment relationship without notice. However, the plaintiff argued that he had only charged the vehicle briefly due to an unexpected technical problem and had assumed that the company would tolerate this. He referred to a company practice whereby smaller devices such as cell phones or e-bikes were charged by employees with the company’s consent.
No termination without prior warning if car was charged at the employer’s expense
The court ruled that the termination without notice was invalid, citing the requirements of Section 626 BGB. The reasons for the ruling show that immediate termination was disproportionate in such a case and that a prior warning would have been necessary instead. The court’s main arguments included the following points:
1. existence of good cause: The court found that the incident basically constituted “good cause per se” as the charging of the hybrid vehicle was done without the employer’s consent. This act was deemed to be an act of willful misconduct that potentially violated the employer’s trust and interfered with the employer’s property.
2. case-by-case assessment and company practice: Nevertheless, the court found that the company had failed to establish and enforce clear rules that were understandable for all employees. It turned out that charging smaller devices such as cell phones or tablets at the workplace was prohibited but tolerated. This practice meant that the plaintiff may not have been clear that charging his hybrid car constituted such a serious breach of duty.
3. necessity of a warning: Due to the unclear requirements and the tolerated practice of charging smaller devices, the court found that a warning would have been necessary before dismissal. This would have given the employee the opportunity to adjust his behavior and become familiar with the employer’s expectations. According to the principle of proportionality, a warning should always precede a dismissal if the misconduct is not so serious that a continuation of the employment relationship would be unreasonable.
4. house rules and grounds for termination: According to the court, the provision in the house rules prohibiting the charging of batteries for electric motors for safety reasons was primarily aimed at guests of the company. Although the house rules could also apply to employees, this is not sufficient to classify the plaintiff’s conduct as relevant for termination without notice.
Conclusion: Create an obligation to issue warnings and transparency
The ruling makes it clear that termination without notice cannot simply be pronounced due to breaches of the rules, particularly if no warning was issued and the employer tolerated a company practice that served as guidance for the employee. Companies should create clear guidelines that are binding for all employees and ensure that these are implemented consistently. There is always an obligation to issue a warning if the employee’s behavior cannot be classified as such a serious abuse of trust that immediate dismissal would be justified.
Companies can learn from this case that transparency in communication and clear rules are essential in order to avoid conflicts of this kind.
* This refers to persons of all gender identities. Other spellings are only omitted for reasons of readability.
