RPS STAHMER

RPS Stahmer is a law firm specialized in employment law and operating throughout Germany

Specialist lawyers
for labor law

We advise on collective bargaining law, works constitution law and individual law issues.

Experts Advice

We negotiate on your behalf and represent you in and out of court.

The law firm for labor law

Welcome to RPS Stahmer, your law firm for labor law. For over 40 years, our advice has focused on the areas of collective bargaining law, works constitution law and individual labor law. We are based in Hamburg and are active throughout Germany and before all German labor courts and all ordinary civil courts. Our lawyers, who are highly specialized and experienced in employment law, aim to work with you to develop tailor-made solutions for your employment law concerns and to manage your case for you. This may involve individual legal issues with employees and their employment contracts, negotiations with the works council - in conciliation committees or on other issues relating to works constitution law - or negotiations with a trade union as well as issues relating to the right to strike or collective bargaining law. Of course, we can also provide you with competent support before the labor courts, the regional labor courts and the Federal Labor Court as well as - in matters relating to employment contracts of Executives or Managing Directors - the ordinary civil courts.

Rolf Stahmer - Founder of the law firm RPS Stahmer
Rolf Stahmer, specialist attorney for labor law at the law firm RPS Stahmer in Hamburg

Main focus area

“


Collective Bargaining Law

"With its standards for companies and employees, collective bargaining law plays a major role in labor law practice. We support the dialogue between employers and trade unions with the aim of achieving practicable regulations for both sides."


Works Constitution Law

"Works constitution law regulates the often differing interests of the employer and the workforce. Together with our clients, we develop solutions that are in line with their interests, transparent and as unbureaucratic as possible."


Individual Labor Law

"Individual labor law is intended to clarify the rights and obligations of individual employees. This is the benchmark for our advice."



What sets us apart

Eye for the essentials, proactive design, solution-orientation

“



Lawyers for labor law

RPS Stahmer is a renowned nationwide labor law firm based in Hamburg. As experienced labor law attorneys, we support you with our expertise and commitment in all matters relating to labor law: In individual labor law, works constitution law as well as collective bargaining law and corporate co-determination. We understand the complexity and interdependence of these areas of law and are committed to representing your interests with expertise and passion. We advise and represent board members and managing directors in all aspects of employment contract law.

The work of our law firm is characterized by individual and personal advice geared towards the client's interests. We analyze your situation in detail and develop tailor-made solutions together with you in order to optimally protect your legal position. Our clients are predominantly employers and executives, whose interests we represent with commitment and professionalism. We attach great importance to a trusting working relationship.

We are your reliable partner when it comes to labor law issues and problems.

RPS Stahmer - your law firm for labor law from Hamburg.

Personalized advice Personalized advice



Personalized advice

"At RPS Stahmer, you know who you're talking to."




Our BLOG

News Labor Law

Inadmissibility of the Advance Assignment of Claims Arising from Default in Acceptance – Federal Labor Court (BAG), Decision of January 28, 2026 – 5 AS 4/25

The Fifth Senate of the Federal Labor Court (BAG) reaffirms that while § 615, sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) is generally derogable, an employ-ee’s claims against the employer arising from default in acceptance in the event of an invalid termination or one that takes effect only at a later date cannot be completely excluded in advance by the employment contract.

What happened? A flight attendant employed by a U.S. airline had received two notices of termination in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the first on Sep-tember 29, 2020, effective October 1, 2020. In response to her lawsuit, the Labor Court ruled that the employment relationship did not end until April 30, 2021. For the period from October 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021, the plaintiff demanded her compensation pursuant to § 615, sentence 1, of the German Civil Code (BGB) on the grounds of the airline’s default in acceptance. The Labor Court and the Regional Labor Court dismissed this claim for payment because the parties had contractually excluded the application of § 615 BGB, meaning that the airline owed no wages for default of acceptance for the period after October 1, 2020 (i.e., the period following the invalid termination). The Federal Labor Court (BAG) disagreed: The provisions on protection against termination are not only intended to preserve the formal existence of the employment relationship but are also meant to ensure the economic protection of the employee.

Employers may therefore not include clauses in employment contracts that completely exclude compensation for delay in acceptance in the event of an in-valid termination. Such a provision would be invalid under Section 134 of the German Civil Code (BGB), as it would be designed to circumvent the protection of employees intended by the provisions on protection against termination. This also applies to attempts to circumvent German employment protection regula-tions by choosing foreign law.

Employers should review their employment contracts—and in particular clauses regarding the choice of governing law—to ensure that they do not violate these mandatory requirements.

to the press release

Validity of a Choice-of-Law Clause, Federal Labor Court (BAG), Judgment of March 19, 2026 – 2 AZR 53/25

A pre-formulated clause that designates German law is subject to the transpar-ency review under Section 307(1), second sentence, of the German Civil Code (BGB) and may be invalid if it fails to inform the employee of the protection af-forded by mandatory provisions of the objectively applicable law.

Particularly in the age of remote work and international collaboration, determin-ing the applicable law is of great practical importance. The decision shows that long-term remote work abroad can lead to a change in the applicable law, with corresponding consequences for the right to terminate employment and other labor law issues.

The plaintiff, a resident of the Netherlands, worked exclusively from there and was employed by a German company headquartered in Germany. The em-ployment contract contained the following clause: “German law applies to the employment relationship.”

The employer terminated the employment relationship, citing urgent operational reasons. At the time of termination, the plaintiff was already on continuous sick leave due to illness.

Unlike under German law, Dutch law generally prohibits an employer from ter-minating an employee’s employment during a period of existing incapacity to work.

The Federal Labor Court (BAG) deemed the clause to be non-transparent and invalid because it misleadingly gave the impression that only the chosen Ger-man law was applicable to the contract, without informing the employee that he or she also enjoyed the protection afforded by the mandatory provisions of Arti-cle 8(1), second sentence, of the Rome I Regulation of the law that would apply in the absence of the clause—namely, Dutch law.

In the absence of a valid choice of law, the law applicable to the employment re-lationship was to be determined in accordance with Article 8(2) through (4) of the Rome I Regulation. The employee’s work, which took place almost exclu-sively in the Netherlands, was not merely temporary. Based on the totality of the circumstances, there was no closer connection to Germany. Therefore, Dutch law applied, and the termination was invalid.

to the press release

Validity of a Garden Leave Clause and Withdrawal of Company Car Use – BAG, Judgment of 25 March 2026 – 5 AZR 108/25

The Federal Labour Court confirmed that a clause entitling an employer, as a matter of principle, to place an employee on garden leave following notice of termination until the end of the notice period is invalid.

According to established case law, employees generally have a right to be em-ployed in accordance with their contract, both before and after notice of termina-tion has been given. An employer’s obligation to provide work ceases only where its interest in not employing the employee outweighs the employee’s in-terest in continued employment. Employment contracts should expressly reflect this principle.

Legitimate employer interests may include suspected disclosure of trade se-crets, anticipated competitive activity, solicitation of customers, circumstances constituting grounds for summary dismissal, or situations in which employment is no longer possible due to business closure, lack of orders, or a lawful reor-ganisation.

However, a contractual provision linking the withdrawal of the right to private use of a company car to a justified garden leave remains permissible.

The decision underlines the need for careful drafting of garden leave clauses in employment contracts.

to the press release

Service of a BEM Invitation – Federal Labor Court (BAG) Ruling of May 7, 2026 – 2 AZR 184/25

The Federal Labor Court’s decision addresses the proof of receipt of invitations to participate in the workplace integration management (BEM) process and the associated issues of the burden of proof. The case illustrates how even formal errors in service can cause an otherwise potentially valid termination for per-sonal reasons to fail.

Although the implementation of the BEM is not a formal prerequisite for the va-lidity of a termination, it has significant implications for the burden of presenta-tion and proof.

In the facts underlying the decision, the employer had sent a second BEM invita-tion by registered mail with return receipt requested prior to issuing the termina-tion notice. The postal delivery agent documented the delivery exclusively via his scanner.

This was not sufficient for the Federal Labor Court (BAG) to presume, on the face of the evidence, that the employee had received the letter by placing it in his mailbox.

The decision thus makes it clear that employers should therefore exercise particular care when delivering BEM invitations and other important la-bor law notices—such as written warnings or notices of termination—and should choose legally secure delivery methods, such as personal delivery by a courier service.

to the press release

Works council elections do not protect against the end of fixed-term contracts, Federal Labor Court, June 18, 2025, Ref. No.: 7 AZR 50/24

The Federal Labor Court has clarified: An employment relationship that has been validly limited in duration under the Part-Time and Fixed-Term Employment Act (= Teilzeit- und Befristungsgesetz = TzBfG) ends regularly upon expiry of the agreed term – even if the employee has been elected to the works council in the meantime. Simply being elected to the works council does not protect employees from the end of a fixed-term contract. Employers retain their freedom of contract – but only as long as there is no unequal treatment because of the membership in the works council, for which there has to be concrete evidence of a discrimination. Works council members are indeed protected against discrimination (Sec. 78 of the Works Council Constitution Act = Betriebsverfassungsgesetz = BetrVG), but they are not protected from the expiry of a fixed-term employment contract. The employer’s decision not to offer a subsequent contract must be objectively justifiable and demonstrably independent of the works council activity.

to the press release

Works council elections: Active voting rights also in matrix structures, Federal Labor Court, May 22, 2025, Ref. No.: 7 ABR 28/24

An employee who belongs to several operational units (Betriebe) of the same company has the right to vote in the works council elections in all of these operational units. This also applies to managers in companies with an internal matrix structure. Managers working within matrix structures – for example, with professional or functional responsibility across several operational units – may, under certain conditions, participate in works council elections in multiple establishments. As long as they do not qualify as executive employees within the meaning of Sec. 5 para 3 of the Works Council Constitution Act (Betriebsverfassungsgesetz = BetrVG), they possess active suffrage in all relevant operational units. This multiple suffrage is legally permissible and can significantly influence the composition and the decision-making power of works councils.

to the press release

Employer liability for insecure HR software, Federal Labor Court, May 8, 2025, Ref. No.: 8 AZR 209/21

According to the new case law of the Federal Labor Court, an employer must pay non-pecuniary damages under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) if it transfers employees’ personal real data to another group company – even for testing purposes – without a clear legal basis. In light of this decision, employers are advised not to use real personal data for testing when no legal basis exists, to carefully review company agreements and ensure alignment with GDPR requirements, and to strictly observe data minimization principles. Internal data transfers within a corporate group are not a free pass. Employers are liable if data protection requirements are not strictly complied with – even in seemingly “innocent” software testing scenarios.

to the press release

Virtual stock options count toward severance pay, Federal Labor Court, March 27, 2025, Ref. No.: 8 AZR 63/24

With its new decision, the Federal Labor Court strengthens the rights of departing employees and provides employers with clear guidance on how to handle participation programs and post‑contractual non‑compete clauses. Benefits from virtual stock option programs (VSOP) must be taken into account when calculating the compensation owed during a post‑contractual non‑competition period, provided that the options were exercised while the employment relationship was still ongoing. Virtual stock options are considered contractual remuneration for work performed. They therefore constitute part of the “contractual benefits” within the meaning of Sec. 74 para 2 of the German Commercial Code (= Handelsgesetzbuch = HGB) and must be included in the calculation of the non‑compete compensation.

to the press release

Target agreements in employment contracts, Federal Labor Court, February 19, 2025, Ref. No.: 10 AZR 57/24

In its judgment of February 19, 2025 (file ref.: 10 AZR 57/24), the Federal Labor Court clarified that if an employer fails to set the targets for variable remuneration (e.g., bonus, premium) in a timely manner, the employee is still entitled to the bonus – in full. Target agreements are only valid if they are communicated clearly, bindingly, and by a specific deadline, and if the employee can realistically influence the achievement of the target. If the employer fails to define the targets in time, he is liable – even if the employee has not performed any target‑related work. In such cases, the Federal Labor Court considers the employee to have a claim for damages.

to the press release

Provision of digital pay statements permissible, Federal Labor Court, January 28, 2025, Ref. No.: 9 AZR 48/24

The Federal Labor Court has ruled that employers may provide payslips in digital form, provided that employees have secure and permanent access to them; a printed copy is no longer mandatory. This decision facilitates further digitization in payroll administration. Employers who switch to electronic pay statements can reduce administrative effort – but must ensure data protection and accessibility. The payslips must be accessible, downloadable, and protected against unauthorized access. This can be achieved, for example, by setting up a secure digital mailbox for each employee.

to the press release

Fourth Bureaucracy Relief Act

The new Bureaucracy Relief Act, which entered into force on January 1, 2025, and introduces significant amendments to legislation relevant to employment law, will substantially change how employment‑related processes can be handled within companies in the future – clearly to the benefit of employers. Many declarations that previously required a formalized written form may now be submitted informally/digitally. Fixed‑term employment contracts and employment references can also be created entirely in digital form under certain conditions.

to the press release

Calculation Caps 2026 for Social Security Contributions

From January 1, 2026, new contribution calculation caps apply in the statutory pension and unemployment insurance. For employers, this means higher non‑wage labor costs for top earners and necessary adjustments in payroll accounting. In 2026, the calculation cap in the general statutory pension insurance scheme is EUR 101,400 per year (EUR 8,450 per month). In the miners’ pension insurance scheme, it is EUR 124,800 per year (EUR 10,400 per month). The compulsory insurance threshold in statutory health insurance is EUR 77,400 per year (EUR 6,450 per month) – i. e. that only employees who earn above these amounts may opt for a private health insurance. The calculation cap in statutory health insurance is EUR 69,750 per year (EUR 5,812.50 per month).

to the press release

AI Regulation (EU AI Act)

The EU AI Act, which came into force on August 1, 2024, establishes a binding legal framework for the use of artificial intelligence in companies within the European Union – this also directly affects human resources departments and management teams. AI‑based tools, including seemingly “harmless” applications such as applicant‑screening systems or analytics dashboards, may fall under the Act’s strict obligations. When using artificial intelligence, companies will in future be required to document how these systems operate, what risks they pose, and how employees are informed about their use.

to the press release

Sick leave after termination, Federal Labor Court, December 13, 2023, Ref. No.: 5 AZR 137/23

In its judgment of December 13, 2023 (file ref.: 5 AZR 137/23), the Federal Labor Court ruled that a medical certificate of incapacity for work may lose its evidential value if it covers precisely the notice period – especially when it begins on the very day the termination is served and no further evidence is provided. Employers are permitted to question the authenticity of a medical certificate if an employee reports sick immediately after receiving notice of termination without any apparent reason. In such cases, the employer may withhold salary payments until the employee substantiates the illness or provides additional proof (e.g., a detailed medical report).

to the press release

Agreement between the Bundestag and Bundesrat on the new Whistleblower Protection Act

On May 9, 2023, the mediation committee of the Bundestag and Bundesrat reached an agreement on whistleblower protection, which was subsequently approved by both the Bundestag and the Bundesrat. The compromise includes, in particular, changes to the reporting channels for anonymous tips, penalties, and the scope of application of the law. The Whistleblower Protection Act implements the European Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and is expected to come into force in mid-June 2023 following the agreement in the legislative process. Thereafter, companies with 50 or more employees must install and operate secure internal whistleblower systems with specific procedures. For further information, see the press release from the Bundesrat.

to the press release

Employer's Obligation to Provide Information Regarding Vacation II – Federal Labor Court, January 31, 2023, Ref. No.: 9 AZR 85/22

The vacation entitlement of an employee who has been continuously unable to work due to illness since the beginning of the vacation year expires on March 31 of the second calendar year following the vacation year, even if the employer has not fulfilled their obligations to inform and remind the employee.

This is because an employee who is permanently unable to work cannot take vacation, even if the employer had fulfilled their obligations to cooperate.