Jurisdiction for mobile workers is now determined by the actual place of work rather than the contractual office location, according to a recent Federal Labour Court ruling. This decision provides important clarity for remote employees, field staff, and anyone who works without a fixed workplace.
Jurisdiction for mobile workers: Why the actual workplace determines venue
The Federal Labour Court (BAG) had to decide a case where an employee performed most of his work from a home office and at customer sites, while the employment contract named a fixed company headquarters as the place of work. The employer terminated the contract at the company’s headquarters, and the employee filed a dismissal protection claim at his local court. Lower courts disagreed on which labour court had territorial jurisdiction. The BAG now ruled that, for territorial jurisdiction, the place where the employee actually carries out the bulk of his work is decisive – the actual place of work. This principle applies immediately to all similar situations involving mobile workers.
This jurisprudence builds on § 48(1) of the Labour Court Act (ArbGG), which provides that the venue for actions arising from the employment relationship is the place where work is performed. Previously, a contractual designation of the place of work often led to disputes when the actual performance of work differed. The judgment now draws a clear line: contractual provisions yield to the lived reality of work.
Why the actual workplace will be decisive going forward
The BAG’s decision follows the idea that venue should be where the employee has the centre of his life in a professional sense. For mobile workers – that is, employees without a fixed place of business such as field staff, technicians, consultants or remote employees – the contractually named company headquarters is often merely an administrative anchor without real significance for daily work.
The actual place of work cannot be determined by individual days alone; it requires an overall assessment over a representative period. The court looks at where the employee performs his core tasks, where he uses his work equipment, and where he is “present” for the employer. In the case of pure home‑office work, this is usually the employee’s home. For mixed arrangements (office, home‑office, customer visits) the weighting must determine where the focus lies. Exactly this weighing decides the venue for mobile workers in a dispute.
Distinguishing from the contractually agreed place of work
Employment contracts often contain clauses that fix the place of work to the company’s headquarters or a specific branch. Such clauses are generally valid and determine the employer’s right to issue instructions (§ 106 GewO). However, for the territorial jurisdiction of the labour courts they no longer have binding effect under the new BAG case law if the work is habitually performed elsewhere.
This means, for example, that a contractual place of work in Munich does not help the employer if the employee has been working from Hamburg for years and has his centre of work there. Conversely, an employee cannot simply shift the venue to his home by working there temporarily if the contractual place of work and the actual centre of work remain at the employer’s premises. What matters is a lasting and substantial shift of work performance.
Impact on dismissal protection claims and jurisdiction
The practical relevance is huge. The dismissal protection claim must be filed within three weeks of receiving the notice of termination at the competent labour court. If filed at the wrong court, the claim is considered not filed – the deadline is missed and protection against unfair dismissal is lost. Thanks to the BAG ruling, the risk of choosing the wrong venue shifts.
For employees, understanding jurisdiction for mobile workers is essential when deciding where to file a claim. If you work mobile and are dismissed, you must determine where your actual place of work lies and file the claim there. For lawyers, there is now a duty to determine the actual place of work already in the initial consultation and to present it; a mere reference to the contract is no longer sufficient. Employers also need to bear in mind that, when terminating mobile staff, the competent court is not automatically their headquarters – a factor that influences travel costs and choice of counsel. Jurisdiction for mobile workers therefore follows the lived reality of work.
Special pitfalls with home office and project‑based work
Determining the actual place of work is not always straightforward. With classic home office, the employee’s home is usually clearly the focal point. It becomes more difficult with hybrid models: three days home office, two days in the office – where is the focus? The BAG indicates that a quantitative time analysis is a starting point, but qualitative aspects (type of work, importance of presence meetings) can also play a role.
For project‑based assignments (e.g. construction managers, IT consultants) the place of work changes frequently. Here the question is whether there is a “home base” to which the employee regularly returns and from which he coordinates, or whether the current project site is the focal point. If no clear focal point exists, the court at the employer’s seat may remain competent (a fallback venue). Employees should therefore keep records (travel reports, time logs, email correspondence) that prove the actual place of work. Such evidence simplifies determining the correct venue in an emergency.
Recommendations for employees and lawyers
- Conduct a fact‑based analysis: Document where the work actually takes place already at contract inception or, at the latest, when switching to mobile work.
- Secure evidence: Calendar entries, VPN logs, customer confirmations, photos of the home‑office workstation – all help to prove the actual place of work in a dispute.
- Review the contract: Does it contain a rigid location clause that contradicts reality? A mutual amendment creates clarity and avoids disputes over venue.
- Mind the deadlines: The three‑week filing period under § 4 KSchG runs from receipt of the termination notice. If you are unsure which court is competent, you may prudently file a claim at both courts (company headquarters and presumed actual place of work) or file a motion for jurisdictional determination.
- Engage a lawyer early: Determining the correct venue is procedurally decisive. A lawyer specialised in employment law can assess the prospects of success at the respective forum.
Conclusion: legal certainty through clear localization
The BAG ruling strengthens the position of mobile workers by giving precedence to lived work reality over contractual fiction. The venue for mobile workers going forward is determined consistently by the actual place of work. This creates legal certainty – provided the parties know and document this focal point. In practice: it is not the contract text that decides where to file a claim, but the place where the work is performed day in, day out. Those who observe this at dismissal avoid procedural pitfalls and preserve their rights in unfair‑dismissal proceedings.
The legal basis can be found in the Dismissal Protection Act (KSchG) in full text.
Note: This article provides general information and does not substitute for legal advice in individual cases. For a free initial assessment of whether litigation funding might be suitable for your case, you can contact RechtStark.
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.