BAG: Employer’s right to information after termination
Employees are obliged to inform the employer about the placement proposals submitted by the Federal Employment Agency and the Job Centre in the dispute about the default of acceptance remuneration, stating the activity, the working time, the place of work and the remuneration – Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht – BAG), decision of 27 May, 2020 – 5 AZR 387/19.
Read more “ZL Aktuell – Employment and Labour Law 09/2020”
LAG Hamburg: Participation of the works council in determining the required personnel
The Regional Labor Court (Landesarbeitsgericht – LAG) of Hamburg granted the works council a right of participation in the determination of the (minimum) number of employees required for the completion of the operational tasks. The LAG held that the corresponding restriction of the entrepreneurial freedom of the employer is to be accepted (LAG Hamburg, decision of 16 July, 2020 – 8 TaBV 8/19).
Read more “EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR LAW 08/2020”
Employees may refuse to use an electronic time recording system operated with a fingerprint scanner if its use is not necessary, e.g. to prevent misuse in time recording – according to the ruling of the Berlin-Brandenburg Regional Labour Court (LAG) of 4 June, 2020 – 10 Sa 2130/19.
Read more “Employees may refuse to record time by fingerprint”
The Regional Labor Court (Landesarbeitsgericht – LAG) Düsseldorf decided on 23 June, 2020 on the question whether the works council may refuse to cooperate with an employer representative, decision of 23 June, 2020, 14 TaBV 75/19. The LAG rejected this on the grounds that the works council was thus significantly in breach of its obligations under works constitution law and dissolved the works council at the request of the employer pursuant to sec. 23 para. 1 of the Works Constitution Act (Betriebsverfassungsgesetz – BetrVG).
Read more “Works Council may be dissolved after refusal to work with the personnel manager”
With its decision of 19 June, 2020, the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht – BVerfG) has now confirmed what had long been a source of dissent: the so-called strikebreaker ban according to sec. 11 para. 5 of the Temporary Employment Act (Arbeitnehmerüberlassungsgesetz – AÜG) is constitutional, decision of 19 June, 2020 – 1 BvR 842/17.
Read more “Work prohibited! – The strikebreaker ban for temporary workers is constitutional”
The works council is not entitled to demand that the employer’s representative speaks German if sufficient translation is guaranteed in the company, according to the Regional Labor Court (Landesarbeitsgericht – LAG Nuremberg, decision dated 18 June, 2020 – 1 TaBV 33/19.
Read more “Lost in Translation – Employer representative does not have to speak German with the works council”
On Tuesday last week, the German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales – BMAS) released the new SARS-CoV-2 Occupational Health and Safety Rule (hereinafter referred to as the “Occupational Health and Safety Rule”) for publication in the Ministerial Gazette. The Occupational Health and Safety Rule will come into force in August 2020.
Read more “New SARS-CoV-2 Occupational Safety Rule comes into force”
In its ruling of September 24, 2019, the Federal Labour Court (BAG) dealt with the requirements for the effectiveness of preclusion period regulations in socalled old contracts which were concluded before the Act to Modernize the Law of Obligations came into force on January 1, 2002.
Read more “Federal Labour Court: Effectiveness of preclusion periods in old contracts”
The social and economic consequences of the corona pandemic for employers and employees are to be further mitigated in the coming months.
Read more “Social protection package II – key measures”
In view of the widespread activity of home offices since the outbreak of the Corona pandemic and the associated problems and risks, we would like to take this opportunity to once again refer to the Federal Labour Court (BAG) ruling on access to the contents of a privately used device (BAG, dated January 31, 2019 – 2 AZR 426/18). According to this ruling, the employer is entitled to view files that are located on a business device and are not marked as “private” or are obviously private in nature – even if there is no justified suspicion of a criminal offence or serious breach of duty.
Read more “BAG: Employer may access contents of privately used business device”