regional labor court
Leap into the Rhine does not justify termination without notice
With the dangerous jump into the river, the employee committed a breach of duty and disturbed the peace in the company, the court found. photo
© picture alliance / dpa
Employers and employees do not always agree on what is and is not allowed at company parties. In Düsseldorf, the court had to decide in a particularly bizarre case.
Jumping into the Rhine during a company party does not justify termination without notice. That has that State labor court in Düsseldorf on Tuesday and considered a warning for the behavior of an employee to be sufficient.
The employer had acknowledged the jump from a party ship by being thrown out without notice. The sales employee massively disturbed the peace in the company and also endangered himself and others considerably when, despite the strong current, he jumped into the Rhine in his underpants and swam around the party ship.
“I may have wanted to lighten the mood with the action at the time,” said the 33-year-old in court on Tuesday. He denied that he should have consumed cocaine before his daring action in the ship’s toilet. The employer had referred to the observation of a cleaner.
With the dangerous jump into the river, the employee committed a breach of duty and disturbed the peace in the company, the court found. The company continued to employ the man, but in return he had to accept a warning, the judges suggested. Both sides agreed to this, thereby ending the legal dispute.
Defeat in the first instance
The employer, a manufacturer of elevators, had appealed after a defeat in the first instance. He argued that the plaintiff had already attracted attention earlier through improper behavior at a company party.
At that time, the 33-year-old had grabbed a plastic flamingo, as he admitted: “But I didn’t ride on it, as I said, I danced through the hall with it,” he emphasized. He was warned for this at the time, but not warned. The 33-year-old, previously released, can now resume his work at the company.
In the first instance, the dismissal was rejected by the labor court because of a faulty works council hearing: the committee was incorrectly informed that he had jumped into the Rhine “unclothed” even though he was wearing underpants. But that was not the issue for the state labor court.