Munich Labor Ruling Awards Waiter €100,000

A Munich labor ruling has awarded €100,000 and extensive further relief to a 24‑year‑old former waiter who was summarily dismissed after initiating a works council in a traditional restaurant. The Bavarian Higher Labor Court (Landesarbeitsgericht, LAG) Munich linked the dismissal and months‑long sidelining directly to the works‑council push and found broad liability for lost earnings, tips, meal benefits, overtime, washing costs and an apology. The case, decided by a 47‑page partial judgment on April 16, 2025, and a final judgment on June 4, 2025 (11 Sa 456/23), is not yet final; revision was not admitted, and it is unknown whether a non‑admission complaint was filed. The Munich labor ruling is being viewed as a signal decision for low‑wage sectors.

Timeline the Munich labor ruling examined

According to the court, the student sought to found a works council in mid‑2021. After a stormy staff meeting failed to elect a board, he was no longer scheduled from late August 2021. When he later demanded wages in default of acceptance, he was told to return but only in the kitchen. He refused the reassignment, and the employer issued a summary dismissal for alleged persistent refusal to work. The LAG called that pretextual, stating the kitchen assignment served to pressure the claimant or provoke termination.

Core findings behind the Munich labor ruling

The court held the employer liable in damages for violating protections tied to works‑council activity. It awarded the full earnings shortfall, including statutory supplements and the value of in‑kind benefits such as discounted food and drinks the waiter could have consumed after shifts. Crucially, it treated customary tips as lost profit under section 252 of the German Civil Code and fixed them at €100 per shift. Commentators note there is no supreme‑court precedent on tips; the ruling therefore equips employee representatives with a new bargaining lever.

Annahmeverzug and hours baseline

For periods in 2020 and 2021 when the worker was not scheduled, the LAG granted wages for default of acceptance without a fresh offer of work. The judges relied on section 296 BGB because rostering lay solely with the employer in a flexible scheduling model. They used the 2019 practice as baseline, finding 1,092 hours that year (about 21 hours weekly) and treating deviations as the measure of loss. For 2022 and 2023, the court calculated damages on 1,040 hours per year, adding minimum‑wage pay, supplements, in‑kind benefits and tips. The court expressly departed from a 2023 Federal Labor Court line that normally requires an offer even with flexible work; analysts highlight the tension.

Personal liability and successor liability

The employer entered insolvency during the dispute. The claimant expanded the case to the managing director personally. The LAG pierced the GmbH liability shield due to a breach of protective laws, imposing personal, joint liability for the loss. In addition, a new company that took over the restaurant was held responsible under section 613a(1) BGB, which transfers rights and duties in existing employment relationships upon a business transfer.

Apology order and discrimination assessment

Beyond money, the LAG ordered a written apology. The court classified statements in pleadings that referred to the claimant’s age, part‑time mini‑job status and lack of children or maintenance duties as age‑discriminatory. Relying on recent Court of Justice of the EU guidance, it treated an apology as a form of immaterial natural restitution and granted it alongside AGG claims. Specialists describe the remedy as unusual in German labor jurisprudence and note open questions about its interface with freedom of expression under the EU Charter.

Overtime, washing costs and “glasses money”

The Munich labor ruling also awarded overtime pay. The court accepted references to contemporaneous duty rosters—kept daily and annotated by staff—as sufficient substantiation, shifting the burden to the employer to make a detailed rebuttal. It further ordered reimbursement of a €2‑per‑shift “glasses money” deduction that had been retained regardless of actual breakage, as well as washing costs for hygienically required work clothing, which the employer must bear.

Six months’ paid leave due to missing notices

Because the restaurant never informed the waiter of his leave entitlement, the LAG granted around six months of paid vacation, calculated as 29 continuous weeks or 72 working days. Citing CJEU case law, the court said untaken leave neither expires nor becomes time‑barred without the employer’s proactive notice and enabling of leave. The successor company must honour this obligation.

Inside the failed works‑council attempt

Reporting on the record describes dramatic scenes at the aborted election meeting, with management viewing a works council as too costly. The LAG documented that management had lost “trust” in the student and that top figures tried to prevent the meeting. The court’s reconstruction underpinned its finding that management actions aimed to deter representation and justified comprehensive damages for 2022 and 2023—nearly €70,000 of the total—on top of earlier wage defaults.

Why the Munich labor ruling reverberates beyond one restaurant

Media across Germany report the judgment as a wake‑up call for hospitality and other low‑wage sectors where informal practices persist. Analysts stress three elements with broad reach: tips as compensable lost profit; the ease with which properly kept rosters can substantiate overtime; and the readiness to order apologies for discriminatory pleadings. The sums appear high for a mini‑job, but experts note that multi‑year proceedings, default‑of‑acceptance pay, supplements and benefits can produce large totals even at low hourly rates.

Appeal options and next procedural steps

The LAG refused to admit revision to the Federal Labor Court. Parties may still attempt a non‑admission complaint, though success rates are limited. Until final, enforcement steps can be sought subject to security. Observers expect the reasoning to be cited in settlement talks in similar disputes, especially where works‑council activity intersects with dismissal and where employers made no structured leave notices.