Facts

The complainant, [S.] , had been working as an administrative employee at the Regional Employment Agency (AOO) in [X.] since 1 April 2002. From 23 June 2008, he was unable to work for an extended period due to psychological reasons. In the context of a review, discussions took place between the parties in autumn 2008, in which the termination of the unlimited employment contract and its replacement by a fixed-term employment contract were agreed upon. The fixed-term employment contract was signed by a representative of the BPSO on 24 November 2008 and by [S.] on 8 December 2008.

The treating psychiatrist certified [S.] on 1 December 2008 to be fully unable to work until 12 January 2009. From 12 January 2009, he was able to work at his new workplace in AOO [Y.] at 50%, from 11 May 2009 at 70%, and from 20 July 2009 again at 100%. On 26 November 2009, the psychiatrist again certified him to be 50% unable to work.

AOO [Y.] then released [S.] . [S.] , through his legal representative, offered his willingness to perform to the employer before requesting the issuance of a appealable decision regarding the alleged continued duration of the employment contract.

The BPSO stated in a decision of 3 March 2010 that the fixed-term employment contract between the BPSO and [S.] of 24 November 2008 and 8 December 2008 was terminated due to the expiration of the agreed period on 31 December 2009 and that no employment relationship existed between the parties since 1 January 2010.

Considerations

The FSCA examines its jurisdiction and the prerequisites for admission ex officio and with free cognition. The contested decision concerns the termination of a public-law employment relationship and is of a pecuniary nature due to its effects on salary claims.

The cantonal court has stated that a public-law employment relationship under § 16 of the Personnel Act of 25 September 1997 of the canton of BL can be terminated, among other things, by notice, expiration of a fixed-term employment contract, termination without notice, or termination by mutual agreement. Termination by mutual agreement must be in writing.

The FSCA has recognized that the termination of the unlimited employment contract by mutual agreement through a genuine settlement, despite the 180-day blocking period still running due to ongoing illness-related inability to work, which expired on 24 December 2008, was permissible. The complainant fails to recognize that this is not about the question of the admissibility of an…