Classification as a sports ground keeper was the subject of a recent ruling by the Federal Labour Court (BAG) on 20 May 2026 (case number 4 AZR 151/25). A sports ground keeper employed by the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg had challenged his pay under the lump-sum wage table and claimed a higher classification. The BAG ruled in his favour, setting aside the decision of the Hamburg State Labour Court and remanding the case. This case shows how complex collective bargaining agreements can be and the significance of the so-called principle of speciality.
What does ‘classification’ mean in employment law?
In employment law, classification describes the assignment of an employee to a specific pay group or wage level set out in a collective bargaining agreement. This assignment largely determines the amount of the monthly salary. Depending on the task, qualification, work experience and responsibility, the classification can vary.
For many collective bargaining agreements, there are multiple groups and within these groups, different levels or rows. Over the years, an employee may move up to a higher level through work experience or additional tasks. Incorrect classification can lead to significant pay losses over the years – often without the affected person noticing immediately.
Classification as a Sports Ground Keeper: The Hamburg Case
The plaintiff, a sports ground keeper, has been fully employed by the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg since July 2012. He looks after a sports ground classified in category IV. His pay is based on the Collective Agreement on Working Conditions for Sports Ground Keepers (TV Sportplatzwarte), concluded between the Hamburg Labour Law Association e.V. (AVH) and ver.di. Within this collective agreement, there is a lump-sum wage table with various columns and rows. The plaintiff was paid under column 1 but claimed payment under column 3, row 2 or 3.
His argument: The lump-sum wage table not only takes into account the sports ground group and length of employment but also a hypothetical classification into wage groups based on an older wage group directory. Due to his long tenure and duties, he should have been classified into higher wage groups, which should have resulted in a higher column in the lump-sum wage table. The defendant, the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, disagreed: Since the introduction of the Collective Agreement for Public Sector Employees (TV-L) in 2006, there have been no more probationary or task-based promotions for sports ground keepers. Employees can only move to a different row in the table through increasing years of service, not to a different column.
Collective bargaining agreements: Who is responsible for what? Explaining the principle of speciality
In this case, several collective bargaining agreements apply: the TV Sportplatzwarte, which specifically applies to sports ground keepers, and the general TV-L, which applies to employees in the public service of the Länder. This is where the principle of speciality comes into play. This principle states that a more specific regulation supersedes a more general one, provided both apply to the same matter. The TV Sportplatzwarte regulates the working conditions of sports ground keepers in great detail – it is the more specific regulation. The TV-L, by contrast, contains general provisions for all employees in the public service of the Länder.
For classification as a sports ground keeper, the TV Sportplatzwarte is therefore primarily decisive. The question of whether the TV Sportplatzwarte completely supersedes the TV-L with regard to classification and promotions, or whether the TV-L can be used in addition, was apparently the core of the legal dispute. The BAG did not rule definitively in its judgment but remanded the case to the Hamburg State Labour Court for a new examination. This suggests that the State Labour Court may not have correctly interpreted the collective bargaining agreements – perhaps because it did not sufficiently consider the principle of speciality.
How courts decide on collective bargaining conflicts: The role of the BAG
The Federal Labour Court is the highest instance in employment law matters. It decides on appeals against decisions of the State Labour Courts and ensures uniform application of the law. In collective bargaining conflicts, the BAG checks whether the lower courts have correctly interpreted the relevant collective bargaining agreements. Various interpretation methods are used, including the principle of speciality, as well as the systematic, the wording and the purpose of the regulations.
In the present case, the BAG found the plaintiff’s appeal justified. It set aside the decision of the Hamburg State Labour Court and remanded the case to the State Labour Court for a new hearing and decision, including on the costs of the appeal. This means: The plaintiff has not definitively won the case, but the BAG has found that the State Labour Court made an error. The exact reasons for the reversal are not detailed in the published decision, but it is likely that the State Labour Court applied the collective bargaining agreements incorrectly.
What does remanding to the State Labour Court mean?
Remanding a case is an important step in the labour court procedure. The State Labour Court must now rehear the case and issue a new decision. It is bound by the legal assessment of the BAG. This means that the State Labour Court must observe the legal principles established by the BAG. It may take further evidence or reinterpret the collective bargaining agreements.
For the plaintiff, remanding the case is a procedural victory. His case will not be simply dismissed but will be re-examined. However, the procedure may still take some time. Remanding a case does not automatically mean that the plaintiff will receive more money in the end – but his chances are now better.
What can employees do if they feel they are incorrectly classified?
Anyone who suspects they are incorrectly classified under a collective bargaining agreement should act quickly. First, they should carefully read the relevant collective bargaining agreement and check which tasks and qualifications are provided for which group. It is often also helpful to look at the classification guidelines or meeting minutes of the collective bargaining agreement.
Next, it is advisable to contact the trade union. Trade unions advise their members on collective bargaining matters and can help enforce claims. A specialist employment lawyer can also assess the chances of success and prepare a lawsuit with the labour court. It is important to observe the deadline: Claims arising from the employment relationship must usually be asserted within three months of their due date, otherwise they risk becoming time-barred. In addition, there are often collective bargaining exclusion deadlines, which may be even shorter. Anyone who wants to file a protection against termination lawsuit must do so within three weeks of receiving the termination – for more on this, see our article Protection Against Termination Lawsuit: Why the Three-Week Deadline is Critical.
If you are unsure about your classification as a sports ground keeper, you should not hesitate to formally assert your claims with your employer. If in doubt, seek legal advice. A lawsuit with the labour court is often the only way to enforce a higher classification. In this case, litigation funding can help limit the financial risk. Even if you are generally unsure about which steps are sensible after a termination, you will find initial guidance in our guide Being Terminated – What Now?.
The case of the Hamburg sports ground keeper shows that even seemingly clear collective bargaining agreements can be complex. The principle of speciality is just one of many interpretation principles that courts apply. Employees should know their rights and take action if they have indications of incorrect classification. After all, it can be a matter of a lot of money – and the question of whether they are fairly paid for their work.
Note: This article is for general information purposes only and does not replace individual legal advice. For a free initial assessment of whether litigation funding may be an option for your case, you can contact RechtStark.