Germany's Top Labour Court Voids Works Council Election Over 218-Kilometre Gap Between Sites

The distance between two branch offices proved decisive in a ruling that could reshape how German companies structure worker representation across multiple locations. Germany's Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht, BAG) declared a works council election invalid on 4 March 2026, finding that two sites separated by 218 kilometres cannot be treated as a single operational unit without proper legal backing.

When Distance Defines the Workplace

The case centred on a deep-construction firm operating in Germany's southern region. Its branches in locations referred to as M and S sat far enough apart that the court refused to recognise them as one unified operation. Under German works constitution law, the spatial dimension of what constitutes a "Betrieb" — the basic unit for worker representation — carries significant weight.

For geographically scattered sites to be merged into a single operational entity, specific conditions must be met. Without organisational interlocking or a valid statutory or collective agreement exception, each location must stand alone. Since the M and S branches failed that test, holding a joint works council election was unlawful from the start.

This ruling highlights how crucial it is to get your workplace structures legally right from the outset. For UK employers, similar scrutiny applies to health and safety compliance — and getting it wrong can be costly. A free toolkit with ready-to-use risk assessments and checklists helps you meet your legal duties under the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974. Download the free Health & Safety at Work Act Toolkit

Expired Agreement Removes Legal Foundation

A key element in the court's reasoning was the status of the collective agreement that had previously allowed the unusual structure. That agreement, which could have justified the cross-site arrangement, expired on 28 February 2022. The BAG determined that the agreement had no post-expiry effect — meaning its provisions ceased to carry any legal weight for future elections.

By the time election preparations began, no legal mechanism remained to bridge the geographic divide. The court underscored that once such an agreement lapses, the special operational constructions it permitted lose their validity for subsequent votes.

Procedural Failures Compound Structural Problems

Beyond the structural defect, the BAG also flagged serious flaws in how the vote was conducted. A written circulation procedure preceding the election had set 11 March 2022 as the binding deadline. By that date, only eight affirmative votes had been received.

Any ballots arriving after the cut-off could not legally count toward the result. With the required majority unattained within the specified timeframe, the procedure had already failed on formal grounds. German labour law treats such missed procedural deadlines as grounds for challenging any decisions built on them.

Just as this case shows how expired agreements can undermine your legal position, UK employers should regularly review whether their safety documentation is still current and compliant. Over 37,000 British companies already use a free toolkit covering risk assessments, fire safety, PPE and first aid checklists — all in one place. Get the free Health & Safety Toolkit

Election Annulled, Legal Principles Clarified

The actual election took place on 17 May 2022 and was immediately contested. The BAG's final ruling confirms that an election can be challenged in isolation when fundamental errors affect either the definition of the operational unit or the electoral process itself.

Labour law practitioners point to the ruling as a reminder that correctly determining the scope of a "Betrieb" is the indispensable foundation for any legally sound election. Companies undergoing restructuring or watching collective agreements expire must scrutinise whether existing works council structures still comply with the Works Constitution Act. The decision signals that substantial geographic distances between locations generally demand separate worker representation bodies — unless valid special arrangements under Section 3 of the Act are in place.

en | boerse | 69908592 |