The employer’s right to give instructions is derived from Section 106 of the Trade Regulation Act (GewO) and Section 315 of the German Civil Code (BGB).
It authorises employers to determine certain aspects of the performance of work.
This includes the location, time, content of the work and behavior in the workplace, including work clothing.
However, when exercising the right to give instructions, the interests of both parties must be reconciled.
The limitations of this right are determined in particular by the fundamental rights of workers.
Employees are obliged to follow only lawful instructions.
These regulations ensure that employees’ rights remain protected while employers can implement their organizational requirements.
A long-term employee of an industrial company was dismissed on February 29, 2024, because he repeatedly violated the company dress code.
Since his employment in 2014, the person concerned worked in the production area, where, according to company guidelines, red protective work trousers provided by the company are mandatory.
Despite two warnings in November 2023, the employee continued to refuse to wear the required red trousers and opted for black trousers instead.
After his dismissal, the man filed a wrongful termination suit, but his claim was unsuccessful. Both the Solingen Labor Court (judgment of March 15, 2024 – 1 Ca 1749/23) and the Third Chamber of the Düsseldorf Regional Labor Court (judgment of May 21, 2024 – 3 SLa 224/24) upheld the legality of the dismissal.
The court ruled that the employer was entitled, based on its right to issue instructions, to specify red as the color for work trousers. The plaintiff's personal rights in the less important social sphere were considered sufficiently taken into account, so any objective reasons were sufficient for the instruction.
I was able to convince the court with two key arguments that justified the dismissal of a long-standing employee. First, occupational safety was a crucial factor: The use of red as a signal color was considered necessary because the employee worked in production areas where forklifts were operating. The red workwear thus significantly increased the visibility of the employees and minimized the risk of accidents.
Secondly, the Regional Labor Court emphasized the importance of corporate identity, which is strengthened by uniform work clothing in the factory halls.
The dismissed employee, however, could not provide any valid reasons for his refusal to wear the red work trousers, which he had previously worn for years without complaint. His aesthetic concerns regarding the trousers' color were not sufficiently supported by the judges of the Higher Labor Court.
After repeated warnings and persistent refusal to follow instructions, the court considered the company's interest in terminating the employment relationship to be paramount. An appeal was denied.
(Law Court Düsseldorf, judgment of 21 May 2024)
Mon. – Fri. 10:00 – 17:00
