A climate researcher, fired for his ethical objection to commercial air travel, was recently cleared of breaching his employment contract after refusing to fly home.

The case is the first known instance of an employee being terminated for declining to use an aircraft for environmental reasons. 

Dr Gianluca Grimalda, a researcher with the Institute for the World Economy (IfW) in Germany, had previously been conducting his field research through “slow travel” – an environmentally friendly alternative to air travel, involving sea and land routes.

This meant Grimalda took 40 days to travel from Europe to Papua New Guinea’s Bougainville Island for his 2023 research trip.

IfW was initially supportive of the arrangement, which began in 2011, but backtracked after logistical issues, including volcanic activity, significantly delayed Grimalda’s return journey to 72 days. 

When Grimalda continued to refuse a flight home, despite IfW’s demands, his contract was terminated in October 2023.

Grimalda took the case to the labour court, accusing the research institute of wrongful dismissal, adding that its objections to slow travel only began after their relationship became strained due to Grimalda’s greater engagement in acts of civil disobedience.

The Kiel Regional Labour Court initially ruled against Grimalda last February. The court held that taking six weeks to return to the workplace is too long if an employer demands an immediate return, regardless of ethical or political objections.

“The ruling of the regional labour court in Kiel is not surprising from a German employment law perspective,” says Freshfields’ Judith Römer. “Especially, when travelling abroad, tax and social security regulations must be observed, so the employer has a legitimate interest in determining the details, including the length, of a business trip.

“If the employee fails to comply with the employer’s instructions and, therefore, fails to fulfil their contractual obligations, they may be warned or dismissed. A warning is not necessary if the employee has made it clear that they will not change their behaviour.”

However, last month, Grimalda and IfW agreed to a court-proposed settlement, which included an undisclosed amount and a statement that the contract ended “because of incompatible ideological convictions between the parties,” clarifying that no breach occurred.

While the exact value of the deal is unknown, Grimalda has said he will donate €75,000 (£63,000) to environmental activism projects, as well as to ongoing legal battles involving members of Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion.

“I hope that my case will inspire more employees, institutions, and companies to actively support the transition from fossil fuel-based economies to decarbonised and people-centred societies,” he said, adding that he was glad the judgment “implicitly recognised the impossibility of dismissing an employee because of his refusal to take a plane”.

Jörn Broschat, Grimalda’s lawyer, said: “It is time for lawmakers and collective bargaining parties to take these beliefs more into account and enshrine them as labour rights. 

“This is just the beginning of undoubtedly numerous labour law decisions that will address the complex interplay between climate change and the interests of employees and employers.”

Littler Germany’s Sebastian Beckerle tells GML: “This case spotlights the necessity of striking a right balance between climate protection interests, business needs, and labour law aspects.

“It is not an unusual outcome – but the stated reason is surprising: ‘due to irreconcilable ideological convictions’.

“By no means may a general conclusion be drawn from this legal dispute that employees’ climate protection or moral convictions, as such, were suitable for justifying a breach of contractual duties.”

Römer adds that, while the settlement may be positive news for Grimalda, employers should not assume everything he did was lawful.

“Without knowing the details of the court hearing, it is not possible to say why IfW agreed to settle; for example, whether there was a formal mistake potentially jeopardising the validity of the termination,” she says. “I would be very cautious to conclude from the settlement that the court considered Dr Grimalda’s behaviour to be lawful.”

As the effects of climate change are felt more widely, a case such as Grimalda’s may be a sign of things to come for employers. Therefore, Beckerle suggests businesses be proactive in establishing a workplace culture where workers are free to share concerns.

“In general, awareness and corporate responsibilities for ESG-related topics have increased significantly in recent years such as whistleblower protection, supply chains accountability, CO2 reduction targets – only to name a few,” he explains. 

“This includes, in part, reporting procedures and employees’ access to appropriate complaint channels as well as protective mechanisms if they legitimately criticise certain business practices.

“At the same time – as is well illustrated by the climate researcher case – social or ecological concerns and convictions of employees must not be used as a free ticket to undermine their own obligations in the employment relationship or to harm the company.”

Beckerle continues: “This is where the general duty of loyalty to one’s own employer comes into play, who in turn is of course able to punish excessive misconduct.”

German employers have a duty to protect the rights and wellbeing of German employees, which includes not ordering workers to perform tasks which violate legal or ethical standards.

“However, personal beliefs without legal justification do not grant a right to refuse work,” says Römer. “While society and laws may change, refusing to take an airplane would, at this point in time, principally still be considered an expression of such a personal belief.”

But when can an employee legally refuse an order for ethical reasons? The legal situation is not straightforward.

“First, the employee has to credibly argue their conflict of conscience and, if this has happened, the balancing of interests would be the second step,” says Pusch Wahlig’s Verena Braeckeler-Kogel. 

“In such a second step, it may be relevant if the employee could have foreseen the conflict of conscience, whether operational requirements necessitate that the employee perform the assigned task, and whether there is a risk of repetition.”

She adds: “If the employee could have known from the outset that a conflict of conscience could arise, refusing to perform the work afterwards could be an act of bad faith.”

If the refusal was justified, disciplinary action would not be possible, she notes.

“However, the employer may be able to issue a dismissal for personal reasons if the employee will permanently not be able to perform their contractual duties and if the employee cannot be assigned an alternative role in the business that will not result in a conflict of conscience,” Braeckeler-Kogel explains.

“The alternative could have been for the climate researcher to work remotely during their travels, if realistically feasible on the basis of his tasks, operational needs, and means of travel,” she adds.

“While in principle, the employer can determine the means of travel, on the other hand the employer may have been aware – after more than ten years – that the employee refused to use air travel, and they would also have travelled to Papua New Guinea in the same way as they intended to return.”