Facts
Employee [B.] worked for employer [A.] , an association under Art. 60 CC, from 1 December 2003 to 31 December 2014. From 20 October 2013 until the termination of the contract, [B.] was unable to work due to illness. On 1 August 2014, [A.] relocated its registered office from Olten to [U.] . After unsuccessful conciliation, on 19 August 2015, [B.] filed a claim with the Olten-Gösgen Magistrate's Court and demanded CHF 20,165.50 (vacation pay as of 2013) plus interest from the employer. [A.] contested the territorial jurisdiction. The Cantonal Court of Solothurn dismissed [A.] 's appeal against the interlocutory decision of the President of the Magistrate's Court to hear the claim.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court held that for employment law claims, the court at the domicile or registered office of the defendant party or at the place where the employee usually performs their work is competent. The usual place of work is to be determined based on the specific circumstances of the individual case and is where the focus of the employee's professional activity is located. The lower court concluded that [B.] was mainly active in Olten until his last day of work on 20 October 2013, where [A.] had its registered office at that time. The…