Following a decision by the First Senate on May 31, 2005 ( 1 AZR 254/04 ), the Fourth Senate was concerned with the admissibility of a so-called “turbo bonus”. According to a judgment of the Fourth Senate of May 3, 2006 ( 4 AZR 189/05 ), collective arrangements in which employees are promised severance pay for the loss of their jobs on the condition that they do not file a claim for protection against dismissal are regular outside of social plans permitted. This also applies to voluntary church labor law regulations. Voluntarily concluded collective regulations can pursue different and more extensive purposes than a social plan, including the aim of providing an incentive to waive claims for protection against dismissal and thus promote planning security for the employer. Based on this permissible objective, the agreement of a “turbo bonus” in itself does not constitute a violation of the general principle of equal treatment or of the prohibition of discrimination in accordance with. § 612 a BGB. The admissibility of a “turbo bonus” is confirmed by the regulation of Section 1 a KSchG introduced on January 1, 2004, which gives the employer the opportunity to make the employee the offer upon termination, in the event of a waiver of legal action, the option in Section 1 a The severance payment provided for by the KSchG must be paid. Despite the generally permissible regulation, the filing of a claim for protection against dismissal only eliminates the claim for severance pay if it is clear to the employee at the time of filing the claim that he has the right to choose between a claim for severance pay and a lawsuit and he chooses the latter option. The behavior control intended by the regulation necessarily requires that the employee recognizes his options