Can a person-related dismissal security clearance case result in valid termination when an employee loses their aviation security clearance? The Hessian Labor Court answered this question in August 2026 — but only under strict conditions. The case of an OPS agent at an airport also illustrates when a renewed works council consultation is unnecessary and how employees should structure their claims when facing multiple dismissals. The ruling is instructive in several respects.
The Case: Revocation of Aviation Security Clearance Leads to OPS Agent’s Dismissal
The plaintiff had worked for a logistics service provider specializing in air freight loading and transport since June 2000. The company operates at two airports and employs more than ten staff at the plaintiff’s location. A works council was in place.
The employee, born in 1980, last worked as an OPS agent. This role required a special ID with an “L” endorsement. This endorsement is for employees of freight, postal, and cleaning companies who have direct influence on aviation safety due to their duties. A reliability check under Section 7 of the Aviation Security Act (LuftSiG) is a prerequisite. The plaintiff earned approximately €2,916 gross per month and had maintenance obligations for two children.
In April 2024, the competent authority revoked the reliability certificate. For the employer, this meant the employee could no longer perform his previous duties. Alternative employment without an aviation security clearance was not possible, according to the court’s findings. The company then issued a dismissal. The plaintiff challenged it with an unfair dismissal claim but lost both at the Frankfurt Labor Court and on appeal before the Hessian Labor Court. Leave to appeal to the Federal Labor Court was denied.
Person-Related Dismissal: When Revocation of an Official Permit Constitutes Grounds for Termination
A person-related dismissal exists when an employee can no longer perform their contractually owed duties due to reasons inherent to their person. The withdrawal of an official permit is a classic example. Long-term illness or loss of a work permit can also justify such dismissal grounds.
The decisive factor is the prognosis: it must be expected that the employee will not be deployable again in the foreseeable future. A temporary impediment is insufficient. In the case at hand, it was completely uncertain when the employee would regain the aviation security clearance at the time of dismissal. No concrete re-issuance procedure was in sight. The negative prognosis was therefore satisfied.
Whether a person-related dismissal holds up in an individual case depends crucially on this prognosis. The court clarified: if the permit is gone and the employee can no longer perform their previous role, the dismissal ground applies. However, this alone is not enough. The employer must additionally examine whether the employee can be deployed elsewhere. More on this in the next section.
No Alternative Employment: What Employers Must Prove
Before an employer may dismiss for person-related reasons, they must assess whether the employee can continue to be employed in another position — if necessary under changed conditions. This applies even when an official permit has been withdrawn. The employer must specifically explain which alternatives were considered and why they are not viable.
In the decided case, the plaintiff worked as an OPS agent at the airport. Most roles in this area require an aviation security clearance. The employer plausibly demonstrated that no permit-free deployment options existed that could have been offered to the employee. A transfer to the company’s other location was apparently not an option either.
The employer must not only check whether a vacant position exists but also whether the employee could be deployed with reasonable onboarding or retraining measures. In the OPS agent’s case, this failed because practically every role in the air freight sector was ruled out without a valid aviation security clearance.
For employees, this is an important starting point: if a reasonable alternative employment can be found — for instance, a role without a security check — the dismissal may be invalid. Mere assertions by the employer are insufficient. Anyone receiving a dismissal should have it reviewed whether the employer truly fulfilled their obligation to seek alternatives.
Works Council Consultation under Section 102 BetrVG: When the Consultation Right Is Exhausted
Before any dismissal, the employer must consult the works council. This is required by Section 102(1)(1) of the Works Constitution Act (BetrVG). The consultation must be conducted properly; otherwise, the dismissal is invalid — regardless of whether the dismissal ground itself is valid. The works council must be informed and consulted before the dismissal; the employer may only issue the dismissal after the consultation is complete.
The Hessian Labor Court reiterated a fundamental principle in its ruling: the right to issue a dismissal, which the employer acquires through proper consultation, is “exhausted” upon receipt of the dismissal. The employer cannot simply issue a second dismissal without involving the works council again.
These principles apply to every dismissal — including one following the withdrawal of an official permit. Anyone receiving a dismissal should therefore always have it reviewed whether the works council was properly involved. A flawed consultation can invalidate the dismissal, even if the dismissal ground would otherwise stand.
Exception: No Renewed Consultation for Failed Dismissal
An important exception exists to the principle that renewed consultation is required before every dismissal. It concerns cases where the first dismissal never reached the employee — for example, because the dismissal letter was sent to the wrong address or service failed for other reasons.
In this constellation, the Hessian Labor Court holds that no renewed works council consultation is required if three conditions are met: the first dismissal failed due to lack of service, there is a close temporal connection between the first and the renewed dismissal, and the facts have not changed.
This may seem surprising at first but is logically consistent: the works council was already fully consulted on the unchanged facts. The consultation right is not “exhausted” in the sense of a one-time opportunity; rather, the employer may reissue the dismissal under the same conditions without repeating the procedure.
For employees, this means: service of the dismissal is a central point. Anyone disputing receipt must expect effective substitute service. Conversely, the employer can cure a failed dismissal without renewed works council consultation — provided the facts remain unchanged.
Multiple Dismissals, One Proceeding: Structuring Main and Auxiliary Claims Correctly
The case had another procedural peculiarity: the employee filed unfair dismissal claims against a total of four dismissals. Multiple dismissals can arise when an employer issues several dismissals in succession or repeats a dismissal as a precaution.
The Labor Court clarified: anyone filing multiple unfair dismissal claims must, in case of doubt, make clear which claim is the main claim and which are auxiliary claims. This is particularly important when different dismissals aim for the same termination date.
The reason lies in procedural economy: the court must know in what order to decide on the claims. Without this clarification, the claim may be inadmissible — with the consequence that the dismissal becomes effective due to failure to file suit in time. The civil procedure foundations for this are found in Sections 256 and 260 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO).
Anyone who has received multiple dismissals should therefore ensure precise formulation of their claims. The fundamentals of the unfair dismissal claim — from deadlines to procedure — are summarized on our overview page. The further course of proceedings also requires good preparation, as shown in the article on inadmissible appeals.
What Affected Employees Can Learn from the Ruling
The Hessian Labor Court’s ruling is significant for employees in two respects. First, it confirms that the withdrawal of an official permit can justify a person-related dismissal if there is no prospect of prompt re-issuance and no alternative employment is possible. Second, it shows how important it is to avoid formal errors — both on the employer’s side and in one’s own lawsuit.
Anyone receiving a person-related dismissal should act quickly. The limitation period for filing suit is three weeks from service of the dismissal (Section 4 KSchG). Within this time, it must be decided whether and with which claims to defend oneself. An independent specialist lawyer for employment law can help assess the prospects of success and formulate the claims correctly.
At the same time: one can often challenge the revocation of an official permit oneself — for instance, through an objection and an urgent application. The faster the permit returns, the weaker the prognosis the employer needs for their dismissal. Anyone who does not challenge the decision risks the dismissal standing.
The costs of an unfair dismissal proceeding can be substantial depending on the value in dispute. RechtStark is not a law firm and does not provide court representation. However, we assess whether we can fund your unfair dismissal claim if you are considering legal action against a dismissal. This keeps the cost risk calculable while a specialist lawyer represents your interests.
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.