The Bundesarbeitsgericht (BAG) delivered several rulings in 2026 that together draw a sharp line between fatal procedural lapses and tolerable technical mistakes in mass layoffs. At the same time, Germany’s social safety net underwent a fundamental change: on 1 July 2026 the new Grundsicherungsgeld replaced the former Bürgergeld (citizen’s income), introducing stricter sanctions and a stronger focus on job placement.
Strict sequence, no shortcuts
Employers who plan large-scale redundancies must follow a rigid chronological order, the BAG reaffirmed in judgments dated 1 April 2026 (case numbers 6 AZR 152/22 and 6 AZR 157/22). The sequence is:
- Conclude the consultation procedure with the works council – exhaustively.
- File a mass-dismissal notice with the Federal Employment Agency.
- Only then may the employer issue termination notices.
If
A separate decision by the Second Senate on 19 March 2026 (Az. 2 AS 22/23) added that a missing or defective notification cannot be fixed after terminations have been sent. The nullity flows directly from the Kündigungsschutzgesetz (Dismissal Protection Act).
Small arithmetic errors not fatal
Despite the rigid procedural demands, the Sixth Senate showed pragmatism on 25 June 2026 (Az. 6 AZR 7/26). An employer had notified the agency that it would dismiss 34 employees but in the end issued only 31 or 32 termination notices. The judges ruled that such a minor overcount does not automatically invalidate the dismissals.
The key test: is the agency’s ability to place workers during the mandatory 30-day blocking period impaired? In this case it was not, so the terminations stood.
Standortwechselpauschale: a direct link must exist
Compensation for workers who relocate to a different site is not automatic. On 24 February 2026 (Az. 1 AZR 99/25) the BAG examined a social plan that promised a lump-sum payment for a Standortwechsel – but only if the move happened through an internal clearing procedure.
The claimant had changed sites, but he did so in the context of a separate unfair-dismissal proceeding. Because the transfer did not originate from the social plan process, the court denied the payment. The ruling underscores that company-level negotiators can tie financial incentives to specific coordination mechanisms.
Broader labour-law developments
Two additional clarifications came from other courts. The European Court of Justice held that travel in a company vehicle from a central base to the actual work site counts as working time under certain conditions. Meanwhile, the Hessian State Social Court (Landessozialgericht) confirmed that a home-office employee’s trip to fetch a meal may fall under accident insurance coverage if the journey is work-related and necessary to maintain the ability to work.
Together, the decisions – ranging from procedural hair-splitting to pragmatic tolerance – give German employers a clearer, if not simpler, map for navigating mass layoffs and the changing welfare landscape.
