BAG on the Effectiveness of a Mass Dismissal Notification

Decisions of the Federal Labor Court from April 1, 2026 – Ref. 6 AZR 157/22 and 6 AZR 152/22

The requirements for a mass dismissal notification according to § 17 Dismissal Protection Act (KSchG) remain a frequent point of contention in practice. With the judgments from April 1, 2026 (Ref. 6 AZR 157/22 and 6 AZR 152/22), the Federal Labor Court (BAG) has clarified that the formal requirements must be strictly adhered to. If the obligations under § 17 KSchG are not met or essential information is provided incorrectly, the terminations declared are generally ineffective..

Thus, the BAG confirms its consistent line: The regulations on mass dismissals are not merely formalities, but serve the protection of employees and an orderly labor market policy response by the Employment Agency.

When is a mass dismissal notification required?

If an employer plans to dismiss a large number of employees within 30 calendar days, a notification obligation may exist under § 17 para. 1 KSchG. Whether the threshold values are reached depends on the number of employees usually employed in the company. Triggers are, depending on the company size, in particular:

• a certain minimum number of dismissals in companies with more than 20 employees (tiered according to § 17 para. 1 KSchG) or
• a certain percentage of dismissals in larger companies.

Important: “Dismissals” under the provision regularly include terminations of the employment relationship at the employer’s instigation – typically terminations. Depending on the situation, other termination conditions may also be relevant (e.g., termination agreements if initiated by the employer). Whether this is to be assumed in an individual case depends on the circumstances.

Legally prescribed procedure: Consultation – Notification – Termination

The procedure is tiered and follows a mandatory sequence:

1. Consultation procedure with the works council according to § 17 para. 2 KSchG: The employer must inform the works council in a timely and comprehensive manner and consult with them on how dismissals can be avoided or limited and how their consequences can be mitigated.
2. Mass dismissal notification according to § 17 para. 1, para. 3 KSchG at the Employment Agency: The notification may only be made after the consultation procedure is completed.
3. Issuance of dismissals: In principle, dismissals may only occur once the notification has been duly submitted.

The notification must contain minimum information, including the reasons for the dismissals, the number and occupations of employees to be dismissed, the total number of employees employed, and the period during which dismissals are to occur. Additionally, information about the status of the consultation procedure must be provided, and the statement of the works council (or the indication of its absence under certain conditions) must be included.

Errors in the procedure: high risk for the effectiveness of dismissals

Dismissals within the scope of § 17 KSchG are legally particularly risky if the employer

• does not submit the notification at all, submits it
• too early (before the completion of the consultation) orsubmits the notification
• incompletely or incorrectly.According to jurisprudence, such errors regularly constitute a violation of § 17 KSchG – resulting in the possible

invalidity of the dismissals.The two BAG procedures at a glance

1) Ref. No. 6 AZR 157/22: Notification not submitted at all

In the case

6 AZR 157/22, the employer had not submitted a mass dismissal notification despite exceeding the statutory thresholds.did not submit a mass dismissal notification. despite exceeding the statutory thresholds. reimbursed by the Employment Agency. The dismissed employee filed an unfair dismissal lawsuit, arguing that the dismissal was invalid due to the omission of the notification procedure.

2) Ref. 6 AZR 152/22: Notification with substantial content deficiencies

In the proceedings 6 AZR 152/22 the employer did submit a notification, but essential information was missing according to the findings – particularly regarding the status and outcome of the consultation with the works council. Thus, the notification was not compliant because the legal requirements for notification content were not met.

BAG: Dismissals invalid in both cases

The BAG declared the dismissals in both proceedings invalid. The court made it clear:

• Without a mass dismissal notification, a dismissal in the context of § 17 KSchG cannot generally stand.
• Significant deficiencies in the notification (particularly concerning the consultation process) also affect the validity of the dismissals.

According to the BAG’s reasoning, the procedural requirements serve an independent protective purpose. They are intended not only to enable the employment administration to respond early to large waves of dismissals but also to safeguard employee interests through the prior involvement of the works council.

Purpose of the notification and significance of consultation

The BAG emphasized the dual function of the mass dismissal notification:

• Labor market-related function: The Employment Agency should be informed early to plan placement, qualification, and further measures.
• Employee protection: The consultation process with the works council should provide genuine opportunities for influence – particularly the examination of alternatives to dismissal and measures to mitigate disadvantages.

That is why it is crucial that the notification only occurs after the consultation process and that the notification contains the required information. A premature or inadequately detailed notification cannot fulfill the protective effect stipulated by law.

Classification: Requirements from Europe and strict sequence

The BAG incorporates its decisions into the graduated system also shaped by European legal requirements (Mass Dismissal Directive): first consultation, then notification, then dismissalsAnyone who deviates from this order or fails to consider minimum requirements risks the effectiveness of the terminations.

Practical consequences for employers

The decisions show that comprehensive care is required for planned personnel reduction measures. In practice, this means the following in particular:

• Check thresholds according to § 17 KSchG early (company reference, 30-day period, number of employees “usually” employed).
• Conduct consultation procedures with the works council completely and documented.
• Only then file a notification and ensure the completeness of the information and attachments (especially the works council statement or information on this).
• Issue terminations only after proper notification has been made.

Conversely, employees can have it checked in protection against dismissal proceedings whether notification obligations existed and whether the procedure was correctly followed. However, deadlines must be observed, particularly the 3-week deadline for filing a dismissal protection claim according to § 4 KSchG.

Notice on legal conformity: This contribution is for general information and does not replace individual advice. The presentation is based on the named decisions of the BAG and the legal requirements; actual results may vary depending on the circumstances.

MTR Legal attorneys advise on employment law.

Feel free to contact us.