“Hands off” registered mail

Unlike the former registered mail with peel-off label, the new digital registered mail is no longer suitable as prima facie evidence. This is the result of a decision by the Hamburg Regional Labor Court (July 14, 2025 - 4 SLa 26/24).

Facts

The Hamburg Regional Labor Court had to rule on the validity of a dismissal due to illness, in which the receipt of an invitation to a company integration management program (betriebliches Eingliederungsmanagement “bEM”) was particularly disputed. The employer had invited the employee to a bEM program several times over a period of several years and finally sent him another invitation letter by registered mail (with proof of delivery) in October 2023. However, the employee denied ever having received this letter. One of the reasons given for his subsequent dismissal was that he had not participated in the bEM procedure. The employer lodged an appeal, after the labor court had already classified the dismissal as disproportionate as the receipt of the invitation had not been proven.

Reasons for the decision

The regional labor court also considered the termination invalid. The reproduction of a delivery receipt for a registered letter does not constitute prima facie evidence of receipt of a letter. In the court's opinion, there was no typical sequence of events that would indicate, with the probability required for prima facie evidence, that the letter had been delivered properly. In contrast to the previous practice of using peel-off labels and handwritten documentation, Deutsche Post's current delivery processes only involve electronic scanning of the barcode and an electronic signature by the delivery person. This documentation does not allow conclusions to be drawn about the specific recipient address or whether the letter was actually placed in the mailbox. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the letter was handed over to an authorized recipient or placed in the mailbox, as the delivery receipt allows both options. The court therefore clarified that no prima facie evidence could be derived from these circumstances.

Furthermore, according to the court, the employer was unable to prove that the specific letter in dispute had actually been received by the employee. The statement made by the delivery person who was questioned was also insufficient, as he could not remember the specific delivery and did not describe any consistent procedures that would have enabled the court to form a conviction that the letter had actually been delivered. Due to the lack of proof of receipt, the bEM had not been initiated properly. However, since the employer was obliged to demonstrate and prove the proportionality of a dismissal due to illness, and since the lack of a bEM increased its burden of proof, it should have demonstrated that a bEM would not have been objectively successful. It had failed to fulfill this obligation. In the court's opinion, the employer had neither demonstrated which alternative employment options had been considered nor explained why adjustments to the workplace or support measures had been ruled out.

As a result of this assessment, the court considered the dismissal to be disproportionate and therefore socially unjustified. The employee was therefore to continue to be employed.

Practical tip

When it comes to meeting deadlines or, as in the present case, proving the delivery of important documents, the following applies: “hands off” from registered mail. Registered mail is not recommended as a form of delivery in sensitive labor law situations, as the subsequent proof of receipt is subject to considerable uncertainty. Employers should therefore play it safe when it comes to delivery and hand over important documents in person or by trustworthy courier against confirmation of receipt. If direct delivery is not possible, it is advisable to document the delivery process particularly carefully. Otherwise, non-verifiable receipt may have serious consequences for the case in question.