Internal Job Postings: One Missing Detail Can Stop the Appointment
- Jul 21
- 2 min read
A hospital advertised a chief physician position internally but left open whether the role was to be filled full-time or part-time. Germany's Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht, BAG) held the posting to be defective for that reason (decision of 23 September 2025, case no. 1 ABR 19/24). For the first time, the court has defined minimum content requirements for internal job postings.
1. The Case: A Chief Physician Position Without Working-Time Details
Long before this posting, the works council (Betriebsrat) had exercised its right under Section 93 of the Works Constitution Act (Betriebsverfassungsgesetz, BetrVG): all vacancies were to be advertised internally before being filled. The hospital did advertise the chief physician position, but left open how much working time the role would involve.
The position went to a chief physician already employed by the hospital, who was to work at two locations going forward. The works council refused to consent to this transfer, arguing that the posting had been inadequate. The labour court and the higher labour court sided with the employer; the BAG, however, has now ruled in favour of the works council.
2. The Decision: Minimum Content of the Posting
Under the decision, an internal job posting must contain at least three pieces of information: a brief outline of the role, the qualifications required and, as a rule, the intended working-time volume.
The rationale is easy to follow: whether a position is offered full-time or part-time determines for many employees whether applying is even an option. If that information is missing, potential candidates stay away. Yet that is exactly what the internal posting requirement is meant to protect the workforce against.
Two objections failed to convince the court. That the working time had deliberately been left open because both options were conceivable was not enough. Nor, in the BAG's view, do filter functions in an electronic application portal replace the information in the posting text itself.
3. The Limits: Lapse of Time and the One-Week Period
Two aspects of the decision ease the burden on the employer side. More than two years passed here between the posting and the appointment; a fresh posting was still unnecessary, because the workforce could tell that the appointment was delayed solely by the ongoing participation procedure.
In addition, the works council must raise all grounds for refusing its consent within the one-week period under Section 99(3) BetrVG. It may not add further grounds later, even where a ground only arose after the period had expired.
Unsure whether your job postings meet the new requirements?
Whether a staffing measure holds up is often decided early in the internal recruitment process, long before the individual candidate comes into focus.
If you want to structure job postings, hires or transfers involving your works council in a legally sound way – or, as a works council, want to review your participation rights – I offer you a short, free initial assessment. In that conversation, we will clarify where your process stands and which steps make sense now.
