Court: Working From Home Revocation Must Be Well Justified

Groundbreaking Ruling by the Cologne Regional Labor Court: A Working From Home Revocation Must Be Well Justified.

⚖️ Judgment:
The Cologne Regional Labor Court (LAG) has ruled that the revocation of a home office agreement by an employer must be objectively well justified. Especially when it involves relocating the employee to a distant workplace.

📜 Background:
In this particular case in the automotive industry, the employer instructed a project manager to work at a new site 500 kilometres away after the closure of their original location. The employee, who previously worked from home about 80% of the time, refused and filed a dismissal protection lawsuit. After all, he argued that revoking his home office privilege required proper justification, which the employer failed to provide.

📖 Court’s Reasoning:
The court deemed the relocation invalid, stating that it violated the principle of "reasonable discretion" under Section 106 of the Trade Regulation Act (GewO). There were no sufficient objective reasons to justify both the revocation of the home office agreement and the relocation.
Additionally, the alternative dismissal with modified terms was also ruled invalid, as there were no urgent operational requirements under the Dismissal Protection Act (KSchG).

✅ Conclusion:
This ruling emphasizes that employers must present clear, objective interests when revoking home office agreements, especially if such actions result in significant changes for the employee. Especially, the decision is particularly significant for employees who have relocated based on the availability of home office options. We recommend professionalizing working from home with our products and services.

Here is the article from LTO.

Detailed Legal Justification

The detailed reasoning was as follows that a working from home revocation must be well justified. When a business location is closed, it is deemed unreasonable for an employer to revoke an employee's home office agreement and transfer them to a new location 500 kilometers away. This was decided by the Cologne Regional Labor Court (LAG) (Judgment of July 11, 2024, Ref. 6 Sa 579/23).

The LAG Cologne found both the relocation and the alternative dismissal with modified terms invalid. The court stated that the relocation violated the principle of "reasonable discretion" under Section 106 of the Trade Regulation Act (GewO). While Section 106 GewO grants employers the right to instruct employees on when, where, and how to work. This authority is not without limits and must respect reasonable discretion.

In this case, the court found that relocating the employee from their home office, where they were "deeply rooted in family, logistics, social circles, and cultural ties," to an office 500 kilometres away required "overriding objective interests on the part of the employer." This principle guided the court's decision.

It concluded that while the closure of the business location could constitute an urgent operational requirement. This did not justify revoking the employee’s home office agreement. The employer had failed to present any substantial reasons for the revocation.

The invalidity of the alternative dismissal with modified terms was based on Section 1(1) of the Dismissal Protection Act (KSchG). It ruled that the dismissal was "not due to urgent operational requirements as outlined in Section 1(2) KSchG," thus rendering it invalid.