How many warning notices before dismissal?

The short answer: there is no fixed number

There is no legally fixed number of warning notices (Abmahnungen) required before a dismissal. Neither the Protection Against Dismissal Act (KSchG) nor the German Civil Code (BGB) name a number. The case law of the Federal Labour Court does not work with a counter either, but with a judgement made in the individual case.

The famous rule "three warning notices, then dismissal is allowed" is a myth, and it is dangerous in both directions: if you believe you still have two mistakes free after the first warning notice, you underestimate your risk. If you assume after the third warning notice that the dismissal is now unassailable, you overestimate the employer's position.

What actually matters are four things: the relevance (does the warning notice concern the same area of duty as the dismissal reason?), the severity of the breach of duty, the currency of the warning notice, and only then its number. From this follow two sentences that describe the answer to your question better than any number:

• A single warning notice can be enough, if it was relevant and you repeat the same behaviour shortly afterwards.
• Five warning notices can support nothing, if they concern five different topics, are worded too vaguely, or date back years.

And at the outer edge stands the reverse case: for a serious breach of duty, for example theft to the employer's detriment, no warning notice is needed at all. In that case, summary dismissal is possible immediately, based on good cause under § 626 BGB.

Important: once the dismissal has already arrived, only one number still counts, and it has nothing to do with warning notices: 3 weeks from receipt of the written dismissal for the unfair dismissal claim (§ 4 KSchG). After that, even a completely baseless dismissal is deemed valid.

What the warning notice is actually for

To understand why there is no number, you need to know what a warning notice is legally meant to achieve. It serves three functions:

• Reprimand function: the employer names a specific behaviour and makes clear that it is being assessed as a breach of duty.
• Warning function: it announces that in the event of repetition, the continued existence of the employment relationship is at stake. This is the core: without this warning, the letter is only an admonition and does not support a later dismissal.
• Documentation function: the incident is recorded in the file and can later be proven in proceedings.

According to the case law of the Federal Labour Court, a warning notice is generally a prerequisite for a conduct-related dismissal where the behaviour is controllable. The reason lies in the so-called forecast principle: a dismissal is not a punishment for the past, but is meant to prevent future breaches of contract. The employer must therefore show that your behaviour is likely to be repeated. This negative forecast can only seriously be made once you have been warned and behaved the same way again despite this. You can read everything else about this standard of review under conduct-related dismissal.

From this it follows why a number would be nonsensical: the warning notice is not a points account, but a piece of evidence for a forecast. And a forecast does not get better simply because three slips of paper lie in the file instead of one. It gets better if the warning matches the accusation, is recent enough, and you ignored it.

Note: this also applies in your favour. The warning notice is expressly the milder means: an employer who issues a warning notice thereby says themselves that they want to continue the employment relationship. For the same incident that has already been warned about, they may no longer dismiss you afterwards, this right has been used up by the warning notice.

The four factors that really matter

Instead of counting, labour courts examine four criteria. If you want to know how close a dismissal is, go through this list for your own warning notices:

1) Relevance: does the warning notice match the accusation?

This is by far the most important factor and at the same time the one where most dismissals fail. A warning notice only works for the same area of duty. Someone warned for repeated lateness is not thereby warned that private internet use will lead to dismissal. The employer would first have to issue a relevant warning notice for that too. Three warning notices on three completely different topics therefore do not add up, they remain three separate first warnings.

2) Severity: how serious was the breach of duty?

The more serious the breach, the fewer repetitions are needed. For minor matters (being five minutes late once), a dismissal is often disproportionate even after several warning notices. For significant breaches (persistent refusal to work, unexcused absence over several days), a single relevant warning notice can be enough.

3) Currency: how long ago was the warning notice?

A warning that dates back years and was never followed by anything else warns nobody anymore. There is no statutory expiry period, but the warning function fades with the passage of time and with conduct free of further complaints.

4) Number: only now, and only as an indicator

The number is the last factor, not the first. Several relevant warning notices can help the employer prove the risk of repetition. But they can also speak against them: someone who issues a warning notice four times for the same trivial matter and continues to employ you thereby shows that continuation was reasonable for them.

How close is a dismissal? Four typical scenarios

Do you recognise your situation in one of these rows? Work out in 2 minutes with the severance calculator what severance payment would realistically be a reasonable benchmark, should it come to dismissal.

When no warning notice is needed at all

The question "how many warning notices" has an uncomfortable flip side: sometimes the answer is zero. According to the case law of the Federal Labour Court, a warning notice is dispensable if it could not fulfil its purpose from the outset. This essentially concerns three groups of cases:

• Serious breach of duty: the breach is so severe that you could not seriously expect the employer to accept it. Typical examples are theft, embezzlement, fraud, expense manipulation, or fraudulently recording working time.
• Breach within the sphere of trust: what is affected is not work performance, but trust itself. Trust destroyed by property offences cannot be restored by a warning, which is why the warning notice would be pointless.
• Evidently no willingness to change behaviour: you make it clearly recognisable that you will under no circumstances change your behaviour. Here too, the warning goes nowhere.

In these cases, the employer regularly resorts to summary dismissal and relies on good cause under § 626 BGB. The general legal principle behind it, that continuing obligations can be terminated for good cause, is set out in § 314 BGB, and for the employment relationship § 626 BGB is the more specific provision. What all needs to come together here, you can read under extraordinary dismissal.

Important: "dispensable" does not mean "automatically valid". The employer must prove the serious breach of duty, and must observe the 2-week declaration deadline of § 626(2) BGB. If they cannot prove the act and instead rely only on suspicion, even stricter rules apply again, among other things they must hear you beforehand. More on this under dismissal on suspicion.

When a warning notice is of no use at all: other types of dismissal

A common misunderstanding: "I was never given a warning notice, so I can't be dismissed." That is only true for conduct-related dismissals. The Protection Against Dismissal Act names three grounds for dismissal in § 1(2) KSchG, and for two of them the warning notice plays no role at all:

• Operational dismissal: your job disappears. The fact that you behaved impeccably changes nothing about that, a warning notice would be pointless. Completely different points are examined here, above all the social selection (Sozialauswahl). Details under operational dismissal and severance pay.
• Personal dismissal: you can no longer permanently render the owed performance, without any fault attaching to you. Because there is no controllable behaviour, there is nothing to warn about. More under personal dismissal, the most frequent application being illness-related dismissal.

In practice this means: the warning notice question is only your central lever if the employer actually accuses you of a specific conduct. If the dismissal letter states something else, or no reason at all (which is permitted, the reason only needs to be presented in proceedings), the assessment shifts. The same 3-week deadline applies in every case, though.

A side note on the works council (Betriebsrat): if one exists, it must be consulted under § 102 BetrVG before every dismissal, regardless of the type of dismissal and warning notices. If it is not informed, or informed incompletely, the dismissal is invalid for that reason alone. More under works council.

When does a warning notice lose its effect?

There is no statutory time limit after which a warning notice automatically disappears from the personnel file, it can remain there indefinitely. But its effect is something different from its existence, and this effect fades.

The longer the incident that was warned about lies in the past, and the longer you have behaved without further complaints since then, the less the warning notice supports a forecast for the future. How quickly this happens depends above all on the severity of the original breach: a warning notice for a single instance of unpunctuality is used up considerably faster than one for a serious breach of duty.

Separate from this is the right to removal. If a warning notice is factually incorrect, too vague, disproportionate, or violates your personality rights, you can demand that it be removed from the personnel file. The case law of the Federal Labour Court derives this claim from § 242 BGB in conjunction with § 1004 BGB by analogy. It does not require any passage of time: you can challenge an incorrect warning notice immediately.

Note: one and the same incident may only be warned about once. If the employer later issues a second warning notice for the same set of facts, it is invalid. A collective warning notice bundling several accusations into one letter is also risky for the employer: if even one of the accusations is incorrect, the whole letter may have to be removed from the file.

Formal errors that make a warning notice worthless

If you want to know how many of your warning notices really count, check each one individually against this list. Any of these errors can mean the warning notice does not support a later dismissal:

1) Vague accusation without a specific act

"Your work performance is inadequate" or "there were repeated irregularities" is not enough. The warning notice must describe the criticised conduct concretely enough that you know exactly what is meant: what, when, where. If date and facts are missing, you cannot specifically change your behaviour, and that is precisely the purpose of a warning notice.

2) Missing warning function

Without an explicit statement that in the event of repetition the continued existence of the employment relationship is at risk, it is only an admonition. It may be unpleasant, but it does not support a later conduct-related dismissal. Check carefully whether your letter threatens any consequences at all.

3) Wrong addressee or wrong sender

Only someone with authority to give instructions may issue a warning notice, typically supervisors, HR management, or company management. A reprimand from a colleague without such authority is not a valid warning notice. Equally problematic: if a behaviour is generally attributed to you from a team.

4) Collective warning notice with one flawed point

If the employer bundles several accusations into one letter and even just one of them is incorrect, this can make the entire warning notice attackable. The employer cannot then fall back on the argument that the other points were correct anyway.

5) Delay and prior toleration

There is no statutory deadline for issuing a warning notice, but if it only arrives months after the incident, it appears contrived. The employer is in a particularly weak position if they previously tolerated the behaviour silently for a long time, for example years of tolerated private phone use that is suddenly warned about.

6) Double warning notice for the same incident

The same set of facts may not be warned about twice. If an incident appears twice in your personnel file, the second warning notice is invalid, and the number of valid warning notices shrinks.

Do you notice at least one of these points in one of your warning notices? Then it's worth using the severance calculator: it shows you in 2 minutes what negotiation value your situation has.

What you can do against a warning notice

Unlike with a dismissal, there is no exclusion period running for a warning notice. You do not have to react within 3 weeks. This gives you room to act, but also tempts you to do nothing. These four paths are open to you:

Do not sign as an acknowledgement

A signature is not a requirement for validity, so you do not have to sign at all. If the employer insists on a signature, distinguish clearly between confirmation of receipt and agreement. Add explicitly: "Receipt confirmed on [date], content not acknowledged." Without this note, your signature may later be interpreted as if you had admitted to the accusation.

Counter-statement for the personnel file

You can write a statement that must be added to the personnel file. It brings your view into the official documentation, which helps later in proceedings. Formulate it factually, name witnesses and evidence, and refrain from counter-accusations.

Demand removal from the personnel file

If the warning notice is factually wrong or formally flawed, you can demand its removal and enforce this claim before the labour court if necessary (§§ 242, 1004 BGB by analogy, according to the case law of the Federal Labour Court). This is the clear path if you want to keep working and keep the file clean.

Deliberately wait: the tactical option

Not every warning notice needs to be challenged immediately. In practice, the attack on the warning notice is often only made in the unfair dismissal proceedings, for a simple reason: there, the employer bears the full burden of presentation and proof for the incident warned about anyway. A separate removal claim can, by contrast, escalate conflict without you gaining anything economically.

Important: "waiting" means documenting, not ignoring. Secure immediately everything that undermines the accusation, and note down from memory how the conversation went. Two years later nobody remembers the details anymore, and whoever has not secured anything stands empty-handed in proceedings. Which option is wiser depends on whether you want to stay or leave.

What this means for your severance pay

A warning notice does not by itself give rise to a claim to a severance payment, and there is generally no statutory claim to a severance payment (Abfindung) even after a dismissal. Nonetheless, the warning notice question is one of the strongest economic levers there is, for a very sober reason:

Every attackable warning notice weakens the dismissal based on it. If it is not relevant, too vague, delayed, or long since faded, the conduct-related dismissal lacks a foundation. The employer then risks losing the case, having to keep employing you, and having to backpay wages for the entire duration of proceedings. In practice, employers regularly buy off this risk through a settlement: the employment relationship ends by mutual agreement, and in return a severance payment flows.

As a benchmark for the amount, the rule of thumb 0.5 gross monthly salaries per year of employment is used. It is not a legal claim, but a negotiation anchor: the weaker the employer's warning notice situation, the more is often achievable. Which other factors move the amount, you can read under severance pay: amount.

Worked example: Tobias and the irrelevant warning notice

Tobias has worked at the company for 7 years and earns 3,800 € gross a month. Two years ago he was given a warning notice for a late notification of illness. Now the employer dismisses him on conduct grounds, this time for allegedly unauthorised private internet use. There is no warning notice on this topic. Tobias brings an unfair dismissal claim in time. At the conciliation hearing it becomes clear that the existing warning notice concerns a completely different area of duty, and the dismissal will therefore hardly hold up. They agree on ending the relationship at the expiry of the ordinary notice period plus a severance payment based on the rule of thumb. With 7 years of service, the statutory notice period under § 622(2) BGB is 2 months to the end of the month.

On top of this there is regularly a favourable reference letter and a formulation of the reason for ending the employment that defuses the benefit suspension period (Sperrzeit) risk. These figures are an example, not a promise, but they show the lever: the entire amount here stands and falls with the question of whether the existing warning notice matches the dismissal accusation. On the tax treatment of the severance payment, it is worth looking at the one-fifth rule (Fünftelregelung).

How much would be achievable in your case? Work out your own example in 2 minutes with the severance calculator.

Benefit suspension period risk for unemployment benefit

If the warning notices actually turn into a dismissal, a second problem arises that many only think of too late: the benefit suspension period (Sperrzeit). Under § 159 SGB III, the employment agency imposes a benefit suspension period, among other things, if you gave cause for the dismissal through conduct in breach of the employment contract. It usually lasts 12 weeks, and additionally the total entitlement period for your unemployment benefit is reduced.

This exact accusation is embedded in every conduct-related dismissal, and behaviour that was warned about is an obvious point of reference for the agency. But the agency is not bound by the employer's account, it examines the matter independently. If you defend yourself and have it recorded in the settlement that the employment relationship is not ending due to conduct in breach of contract, the benefit suspension period can often be avoided. You can find all the details under benefit suspension period for unemployment benefit.

Be careful too with an offered termination agreement (Aufhebungsvertrag): after several warning notices it looks like the convenient way out, but it can itself trigger a benefit suspension period, because you are then jointly ending the employment relationship yourself. Do not sign anything before you know the consequences.

What you should do now

Whether you are holding the first warning notice or already the third: the order of your steps partly determines the outcome. If the dismissal has already arrived, the detailed guide under received a dismissal: what now? applies. As long as it is still only warning notices, this order will help:

1. Do not sign as an acknowledgement. Confirmation of receipt yes, agreement with the content no. If you do sign, add the note "content not acknowledged".
2. Check each warning notice individually. Does it concern the same area of duty as the current accusation? Is the act named concretely with a date? Is a consequence threatened? How old is it? Sort out what remains after this check.
3. Secure evidence, immediately. Emails, time recording, duty rosters, chat histories, names of possible witnesses, plus your own memory note about the conversation. Later it can no longer be reconstructed.
4. Consider a counter-statement. For factually incorrect accusations, it brings your view into the personnel file. Formulate it factually, name facts and evidence, no counter-accusations.
5. Involve the works council, if one exists. It can advise, and in a later dismissal its proper consultation under § 102 BetrVG is itself a separate point of attack.
6. Change your documented conduct, where sensible. Conduct free of complaints after a warning notice devalues it over time, and it is your asset in the balancing of interests.
7. If the dismissal arrives: 3 weeks from receipt. Only an unfair dismissal claim received in time at the labour court preserves the deadline (§ 4 KSchG), not a letter of objection and not an email to HR. How many days you have left is calculated by our deadline calculator for the unfair dismissal claim.
8. Have the situation legally assessed. Whether a dismissal can be based on your warning notices is a matter of judgement, and it decides your strategy: stay or leave, and on what terms.

First get an overview of your leverage: The severance calculator shows you your personal benchmark figure in 2 minutes.

How can we help you?

The question "how many more warning notices?" can only be seriously answered by looking at your specific letters. That is exactly what we do: we review your case together with lawyers specialising in employment law. Are the warning notices relevant? Are they formally sound? How current are they? And if the dismissal comes: how good is your negotiating position, and what is realistically achievable, continued employment or ending the relationship on good terms?

We carry the risk: purely success-based, at no upfront cost, paid only on success. Start with an initial assessment using our severance calculator, it only takes 2 minutes. And if the dismissal is already on the table: remember the 3-week deadline, it will not wait.