BCLP At Work

BCLP At Work

Other Posts

Main Content

German Dismissal Protection – Lies don´t travel far – or do they?

October 15, 2018

Categories

The German Federal Labor Court (BAG) recently held, that employers are not prevented from using grounds which failed to justify a termination in order to file for a subsidiary motion to end employment.

Under German dismissal law, employees can only be dismissed on socially justified grounds. If an employee brings a claim relating to their dismissal and the Court finds that the employer cannot demonstrate a satisfactory socially justified reason, the dismissal will be invalid meaning the employer will have to re-employ them and they will be awarded back pay. However German dismissal law also provides for a remedy to allow employers to file a motion to end employment with employees during wrongful dismissal proceedings. Where the courts find that employment was not effectively terminated by the dismissal, but the employer cannot reasonably be expected to continue employing the plaintiff, the Court shall upon the employer’s motion dissolve the employment

Business Transfers in Germany – New Decisions by the Federal Labor Court with Potential Great Impact

Derived from EU Directive 2001/23/EG, the German law on Transfer of Business (“TUPE”) protects employees in a business transfer situation. As a starting point, TUPE transfers the employment of affected employees from one employer to another on their existing terms and conditions. However, a potential  impact of recent decisions by the German Federal Labor Court on TUPE is that, even many years after restructurings and – supposedly – concluded transfers of business transactions, employees may claim ongoing employment with their original employer (”transferor”) if it is held that no transfer of business actually occurred.

The case law in this area has continued to develop based on rulings by the Federal Labor Court/ (“BAG”). Recently the BAG rendered two decisions (BAGE 8 AZR 265/15 and BAGE 8 AZR 309/16) with far reaching consequences for companies doing business in Germany.

How long after a “transfer” will the Courts intervene?

In the most

New developments on time restricted employment contracts – more “red tape” and further restrictions

The “Große Koalition” (the Grand Coalition) recently concluded a variety of legislative projects which will result in additional headaches, administrative hurdles, thresholds and new deadlines for HR professionals and employment experts. Traditionally, labor and employment laws in Germany have tended to be employee friendly. Now it appears that the few remaining employer-friendly laws enacted in the early 1980s to improve overall employment in Germany will also be reversed.

One area subject to challenge is time restricted employment. Until now, German employers could use time restricted employment even without substantive reasons for up to two years. This concept, known by the somewhat technical German term “sachgrundlose Befristung”, became extremely popular due to wide coverage which extended outside the legal press.

Federal Constitutional Court narrows use of time restricted employment contract

In June 2018, the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany (“Bundesverfassungsgericht”) overruled a 2011 judgment of the Federal Labor Court (“Bundesarbeitsgericht”). The

Post-Contractual Non-Competes – a never ending story

April 30, 2018

Categories

There are few clauses in employment contracts more heavily debated than Non-Competition Clauses (post-contractual non-competes). While employers tend to include them rather easily in order to protect company secrets beyond the term of an employment, strict and mandatory provisions under German law differ from those found in most other jurisdictions. For post-contractual non-competes to be enforceable, an entire catalogue of requirements must be met, including a mandatory compensation payment of at least 50% of the employee`s total earnings for the maximum term of two years – to name just the two most prominent requirements. Because of the potential financial impact on employers, it is highly advisable to carefully consider whether post-contractual non-competes are necessary at all and, if so, whether they will be enforceable.

Two recent decisions in January 2018 by the Federal Labor Court/ BAG (10 AZR 392/179) and by the Appeals Court/ LAG Düsseldorf (Az: 7 Sa 185/17)

Less than 90 days to go – are you GDPR compliant?

“GDPR – please not again …” In recent times there is hardly any other legal topic more often written and talked about than the new EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

In light of the severe penalties and with less than 100 days until the GDPR goes into full effect (on May 25th, 2018), it is time for U.S. companies to take steps to prepare. Below are some key points to consider and pragmatic to-dos to assist in assessing whether your organization is ready for GDPR compliance.

  • GDPR may apply to U.S.-based companies with zero employees and no offices within the boundaries of the EU territory

While the EU Data Protection Directive of 1995 did not apply to businesses outside the EU territory, this is no longer the case under GDPR.

Now any business may be subject to the new law if it processes personal data of an

Works Council Elections in Germany – Avoid mistakes and be aware of special termination protections! Final Part III

February 16, 2018

Categories

March 2018 is getting closer and works council (re)elections will again be on the agenda in Germany. We started this three-part blog last November with an overview to this topic and the second part highlighting the election proceedings. See link to November 7, 2017 blog and link to January 11, 2018 blog. In this final Part III, we briefly address the potential risks of reruns of elections due to mistakes and provide you with an overview of the special termination protection resulting from works council elections.

Avoid mistakes – elections can be challenged or even be null and void!

German employers are well advised to closely monitor the election proceedings. In the event of substantial breaches of the election process, the elections can be null and void, i.e., if such serious mistakes occurred that no democratic process was granted, or in less obvious breaches, elections can be challenged

Employee Representation in Germany – Part 2

January 11, 2018

Categories

Part II of III: Works Council Elections in Germany – Who Does What and How Are Election Proceedings Run?

March 2018 is getting closer and works council (re)elections will again be on the agenda in Germany. We started this three-part blog last November with Jens Peters` introduction and overview to this topic.  See November 7, 2017 article. In this Part II, we briefly concentrate on the “Who does what” during the election proceedings and provide you with an overview of how election proceedings will run in an ordinary way.

Who does what?

The election committee (“Wahlvorstand”) is in the driver’s seat, with responsiblilities for leading and executing the election. Its main tasks are to inform the work force about the election and its proceedings (“Wahlausschreiben”) and to create the list of employees eligible to vote and to be voted (“Wählerliste”). If a works council already exists, the three-member election committee

Mass Dismissal Filings in Germany – Do Leased Employees (“Leiharbeitnehmer”) Count?

November 29, 2017

Categories

Collective redundancies and the complex issue of relevant dismissal thresholds for notification of the German Federal Employment Agency (“Bundesanstalt für Arbeit” or “the Agency”) were already addressed in an earlier June post this year.

On November 16, 2017, the Federal Labor Court of Germany (“BAG” or “the Court”) submitted a case (BAG – 2 AZR 90/17) to the European Court of Justice(“ECJ”) which dealt with so-called leased employees. The question was whether, and under what requirements, leased employees or temporary workers need to be taken into account when applying the thresholds for mass dismissal filings in accordance with Sec. 17 I (1) Nr. 2 Kündigungsschutzgesetz/ KSchG (the German Act against Unfair Dismissal). Because this German Sec. 17 KSchG is based on the European Council Directive 98/95/EC, the Court had no choice but to submit this question to the ECJ. Until the ECJ has ruled – which may easily take

How much is at stake for whistleblowers?

September 29, 2017

Categories

Whistleblowing and the ongoing compliance debate keep the media and the wider press busy and readers alert. And yet these days, executives of reputed global companies are finding themselves imprisoned for fraud and other compliance violations like never before. Enormous fines and even jail penalties were recently imposed upon global players inside and outside the U.S. and hardly a day goes by without new details being reported. Solid facts about who knew what and gave orders to whom remain nevertheless in a grey zone or even completely unknown. Besides the question of who should be fined or sentenced by public prosecutors, one could ask whether some or all scandals could have been avoided by whistleblowers.

What if employees or line managers had disclosed and reported the ongoing scandals early on — either internally, using whistleblowing hotlines or other compliance schemes, or even, in extreme cases, going public by filing criminal

ECHR Ruling: Dismissal Based on Monitoring of Employee’s Communications Illegal

September 6, 2017

Categories

Be aware!  Today’s decision of the European Court of Human Rights (“ECHR”) may force companies to rethink their policies on private internet use of their employees at work (No. 61496/08).

The Straßburg court held a termination for private internet use is illegal. What’s new and striking is that the Rumanian employee chatted with family friends using his business email account.

Over the past few years employers took various measures de-linking private from business internet use to follow urgent compliance needs. In many instances, they introduced strictly separated internet access to allow legitimate monitoring of pure business accounts to follow, among other things, the increasing demands of their own e-discovery officers.

Does today’s decision of the ECHR put an end to all practical and legitimate chat and email monitoring of business accounts for compliance needs? The answer is no.  But the ECHR stressed that employers must take appropriate measures when monitoring

The attorneys of Bryan Cave LLP make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.