Conscientious Objection Against a Work Instruction
- 7 hours ago
- 3 min read
A Munich tram driver, a recognised conscientious objector, is required to operate a tram painted in camouflage colours that advertises the Bundeswehr, the German armed forces. He refuses. The Munich Labour Court (Arbeitsgericht München) has ruled that he has to drive it (judgment of 20 May 2026, case no. 4 Ca 15395/25). The case shows what conflicts of this kind actually turn on: not on the principle, but on how heavily the interference weighs and what accommodation would cost.
1. The Case: A Tram in Camouflage Colours
In August 2024, the Munich transport company rented out one of its trams to the Bundeswehr as advertising space. From then on the tram ran through the city in camouflage livery and with the campaign slogan. Three drivers subsequently registered conscientious objections with management.
When one of them was scheduled to drive that tram, the control centre did arrange a vehicle swap. The driver nevertheless received a reprimand (Ermahnung) and brought a claim against it. The employer responded with a counterclaim asking the court to declare that the driver is obliged to operate the tram. The parties settled the reprimand during the proceedings, so that only the counterclaim remained to be decided.
2. The Decision: The Instruction Stands
The labour court found for the employer. Assigning the driver to the advertising tram is covered by the employer's right to give instructions under Section 106 of the German Industrial Code (Gewerbeordnung).
The driver's freedom of conscience under Article 4(1) of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) was indeed engaged, but in the court's view only marginally. What was required of him was operating a tram in scheduled service, not taking part in a military deployment. Against this the court weighed the employer's freedom to conduct a business under Article 12(1) of the Basic Law, which includes the right to give instructions.
The judgment thus follows the line taken by the Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht), according to which insisting on performance of the contract can amount to an error of discretion where an employee raises a serious conflict of conscience (judgment of 24 February 2011, case no. 2 AZR 636/09) – but no automatic right of veto follows from this.
The dispute is not over. An appeal against the judgment is pending before the Munich Regional Labour Court (Landesarbeitsgericht München, case no. 10 SLa 318/26).
3. The Court's Arithmetic
What is interesting is less the outcome than the route to it. The court translated the conflict into numbers: over 21 months it had affected this driver on a single occasion, out of roughly 650 drivers in the operation. The interference therefore remained isolated.
On the other side of the scales stood the burden on the employer. If every objection registered had to be accommodated permanently, driving operations, maintenance and repair would have to be reorganised. For the court, that effort was out of all proportion to the slight burden on the individual.
For comparable conflicts, this is the real message. Anyone invoking their conscience is not measured by the sincerity of their conviction, but by how often the conflict arises and by the alternatives available within the operation. Both are questions of fact, not questions of principle.
Not sure whether you have to follow an instruction?
Whether an instruction is binding rarely turns on the principle and almost always on the specific balancing exercise: how strongly are you affected, and what alternatives does the other side have?
If you have received an instruction of this kind, or if you want to enforce an instruction as an employer, we offer you a short, free initial assessment. In that conversation we clarify how your situation should be assessed and which next steps make sense.
