Collective labor law
A. Transfer of operations
1. Requirements for the transfer of operations
A transfer of operations in the sense of. § 613a BGB presupposes the preservation of the identity of a long-term, sufficiently structured and independent economic unit. The preservation of identity can result from the transfer of tangible and intangible operating resources, but also from the transfer of personnel, managers, and the adoption of work organization and operating methods. What is important is an overall assessment of all the circumstances (see case law, see only BAG December 2, 1999 – 8 AZR 796/98 –). It is not necessary for a business transfer that the transferee maintains the specific organization of the various production factors transferred. It is sufficient if the functional link between the interrelationship and mutual complementarity of the production factors is maintained. The Eighth Senate did this by ruling of December 17, 2010 (– 8 AZR 1019/08 –) with regard to the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of February 12, 2009 (– C-466/07 – em, [Klarenberg]) expressly reiterated again. In the event of a dispute, the Senate rejected a transfer of operations. If a company canteen is only used by the new operator to heat and serve ready-made food, the previous company identity is not maintained if the food was previously freshly cooked on site. The withdrawal and outsourcing of cooking services represents a change in concept that contradicts the assumption of a transfer of operations.
2. Continuation of collective agreements
If a collective remuneration agreement applies to the employment relationship with the company seller by virtue of mutual collective agreement, the collective bargaining regulations transformed into the employment relationship in accordance with Section 613a Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB) can, according to a judgment of the Fourth Senate of April 21, 2010 (– 4 AZR 768/08 –) cannot be replaced by a less favorable operating agreement in accordance with Section 613a Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the German Civil Code (BGB) that applies to the business purchaser. In any case, a “cross-replacement” of collective bargaining standards through a works agreement is excluded outside the area of mandatory co-determination. The Fourth Senate has thus followed the jurisprudence of the First and Third Senates (cf. BAG 6 November 2007 – 1 AZR 862/06 -; 13 November 2007 – 3 AZR 191/06 -). In the decision, he also adhered to his previous case law, according to which rights and obligations that have already been agreed but only become effective later and are regulated in the norms of a collective agreement also become part of the content of the employment contract with the business purchaser in accordance with Section 613a Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB). (BAG September 19, 2007 – 4 AZR 711/06 –). A dynamic inherent in the statically valid norms themselves is therefore maintained.
B. Company pension scheme
If the statutes and guidelines of a support fund are expressly or implicitly referred to, the employees must, according to a judgment of the Third Senate of February 16, 2010 (- 3 AZR 181/08 -), simply because of the typical exclusion in accordance with Section 1b Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 BetrAVG If a legal claim is made, always expect a change in the pension regulations. According to the case law of the Senate, the exclusion of the legal claim is to be understood as meaning that the pension claim is subject to revocation for objective reasons (see BAG September 10, 2002 – 3 AZR 635/01 –). For this reason, the dynamic reference to the pension guidelines of a provident fund is not a surprising clause in the sense. § 305c paragraph 1 BGB. Such a reference is not invalid because of a violation of the transparency requirement of Section 307 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 BGB. A dynamic reference to the provisions of another set of regulations does not in itself lead to a lack of transparency. In order to maintain the transparency requirement, it is sufficient if the referenced regulations in force at the time of application can be determined. Since the regulatory content of the reference clause is limited to the reference, the clause is not subject to any further content control in accordance with Section 307 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 BGB. However, the employer’s ability to influence the pension entitlements of the beneficiary employees by means of a dynamic reference to the guidelines of a relief fund is subject to the same limits that apply to replacement through change agreements between the operating parties
(see BAG November 17, 2001 – 3 AZR 76/92 -). Interventions in vested rights are therefore only possible within the framework of proportionality and the protection of legitimate expectations. The stronger the status that the employees have acquired, the more important the reason must be that justifies an intervention (cf. BAG December 22, 2001 – 3 AZR 512/00 -). The dispute was simply an interference in future increases depending on length of service. The Senate approved the necessary factual and proportional reasons for the deteriorating new regulations with detailed reasons. In a decision of May 18, 2010 (- 3 AZR 80/08 -), the Third Senate had to deal with the permissibility of reducing a company pension scheme due to the receipt of widower’s benefits under civil servant pension law. The general works agreement on which the dispute is based provides for the widower’s allowance to be taken into account when calculating the maximum permissible total income. This does not violate Section 5 Paragraph 1 BetrAVG. The standard does not prevent the crediting of pension benefits that are paid to the beneficiary for the first time after the insured event occurs. It only prohibits the reduction of the company pension benefits set when the insured event occurs with a view to adapting other pension payments to economic developments. The same applies to Section 5 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 BetrAVG. The regulation simply prohibits the crediting of such pension benefits against a company pension that the employee has acquired exclusively through his own contributions. This is not the case with income from civil service pensions. Section 2 Paragraph 5 BetrAVG is also not relevant. The provision is only intended to prevent pension benefits that the employee otherwise earns after leaving the employment relationship with a vested pension entitlement from depleting the vested entitlement. The crediting of widower’s benefits against the company pension does not violate the protection of marriage and family guaranteed by Article 6 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law. However, Section 75 BetrVG in conjunction with this requires. the principle of equality in Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law when designing credit rules, to bring the purpose of the company pension scheme on the one hand and its remuneration nature on the other hand into an appropriate balance. The consideration of other earnings when calculating company pension benefits must therefore not lead to their disproportionate economic devaluation. If another survivor’s pension is credited towards a company old-age pension, the survivor’s pension must be retained at least 20%, taking into account the legislative assessment in the Civil Servants’ Pensions Act. The supply guidelines are ineffective if they exceed this limit. According to a ruling by the Third Senate of February 16, 2010 (- 3 AZR 216/09 -), the mere difference in status between blue-collar workers and employees cannot justify unequal treatment in a company agreement regarding company pension schemes. Something different can only apply if the difference in status is linked to a fact of life that is capable of bearing the different legal consequences provided for in the company regulations. This must be measured by the purpose of the regulation and the reason for differentiation. The different levels of provision provided by the statutory pension are in themselves a reasonable reason for differentiation. The prerequisite is that the groups – in the case of a dispute, the wage earners on the one hand and salary earners on the other – are sufficiently homogeneous and the group members typically have a similar level of provision from the statutory pension.
Zudem müssen die Rechtsfolgen in der Versorgungsordnung geeignet sein, den unterschiedlichen Versorgungsgrad auszugleichen. Im Entscheidungsfall hat der Senat dies verneint. Die dortige Versorgungsordnung sah unterschiedliche prozentuale Steigerungssätze für Arbeiter und Angestellte vor. Der hierin bestehende Verstoß gegen den betriebsverfassungsrechtlichen Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatz hat jedenfalls im Betriebsrentenrecht zur Folge, dass die benachteiligten Arbeitnehmer Ansprüche auf „Angleichung nach oben“ haben. Diese können sie nicht nur gegen ihren – ehemaligen – Arbeitgeber, sondern auch gegen die Gruppenunterstützungskasse geltend machen. Allerdings sind ihre Ansprüche auf die erhöhten Steigerungssätze begrenzt, die sich seit dem 1. Juli 1993 ergeben. Der Stichtag entspricht der Frist, die das Bundesverfassungsgericht dem Gesetzgeber zur Angleichung der Kündigungsfristen für Arbeiter und Angestellte gesetzt hat (BVerfG 30. Mai 1990 – 1 BvL 2/83 -). Für Beschäftigungszeiten vor diesem Stichtag konnten die Betriebspar-teien darauf vertrauen, dass sie auch im Betriebsrentenrecht zwischen Arbeitern und Angestellten allein aufgrund des Status unterscheiden durften. Der Ausschluss von Erziehungsurlaubszeiten von der Anwartschaftssteigerung stellt weder eine nach Art. 157 AEUV noch eine nach Art. 3 Abs. 2 und 3 GG unzulässige mittelbare Diskriminierung aufgrund des Geschlechts dar. Dies hat der Dritte Senat in einem Urteil vom 20. April 2010 (- 3 AZR 370/08 -) entschieden. Versorgungsregelungen, die an die tatsächliche Arbeitsleistung anknüpfen und deshalb Zeiten des Erzie-hungsurlaubs nicht berücksichtigen, sind durch objektive Faktoren gerechtfertigt, die nichts mit der Diskriminierung aufgrund des Geschlechts zu tun haben. Während des Erziehungsurlaubs ruht das Arbeitsverhältnis kraft Gesetzes. Dieses Ruhen rechtfertigt objektiv eine Anspruchsminderung nicht nur beim Arbeitsentgelt, sondern auch bei den Aufwendungen für die betriebliche Altersversorgung. Dass Zeiten des Grundwehr- oder Ersatzdienstes aufgrund § 14a Abs. 1 bis 3 ArbPlSchG als umlagepflichtige Zeiten zu einer Steigerung des Besitzstandsbetrags führen, obgleich das Arbeitsverhältnis wäh-renddessen ebenfalls ruht, begründet keine mittelbare Diskriminierung von Frauen. Der private Arbeitgeber kann auf die Zeit des Wehr- oder Zivildienstes entfallende Beiträge nach den Regelungen des ArbPlSchG bei den dort bezeichneten Stellen zur Erstattung anmelden. Dies erlaubt eine Differenzierung auch im Arbeitsverhältnis. Auch der von Art. 6 Abs. 1 und 2 GG gewährleistete Mindestschutz für Familien gebietet es nicht, Erziehungszeiten im Rahmen der betrieblichen Altersversorgung anwartschaftssteigernd zu berücksichtigen. Ebenso wenig stehen sekundäres Unionsrecht oder § 15 Abs. 2 Satz 6 BEEG bzw. § 15 Abs. 2 Satz 6 BErzGG tarifvertraglichen oder satzungsrechtlichen Regelungen entgegen, nach denen solche Zeiten nicht zu einer An-spruchssteigerung führen. Eine Versorgungszusage kann nach einer Entscheidung des Dritten Senats vom 20. April 2010 (- 3 AZR 509/08 -) den Anspruch auf Witwen- bzw. Witwerversorgung davon abhängig machen, dass die Ehe vor dem – ggf. vorzeitigen – Ausscheiden aus dem Arbeitsverhältnis geschlossen wurde. Dies steht nicht im Widerspruch zu der Unverfallbarkeitsbestimmung des § 1b Abs. 1 BetrAVG. Vielmehr wird der Kreis der mög-lichen Versorgungsberechtigten damit von vornherein in einer für den Mitarbeiter erkennbaren Weise auf Hinterbliebene eingeschränkt, die bereits während des Beste-hens des Arbeitsverhältnisses in familiärer Beziehung zu ihm standen. Eine solche Regelung ist auch nicht gemäß § 7 Abs. 2 AGG unwirksam. Eine mittelbare Diskrimi-nierung wegen des Geschlechts liegt nicht vor, da nicht ersichtlich ist, dass ein Geschlecht durch die Regelung stärker betroffen wäre. Auch eine mittelbare Altersdiskri-minierung ist nicht gegeben. § 3 Abs. 2 AGG gerechtfertigt.
This restriction is intended to limit the employer’s performance obligations to risks that were already present during the employment relationship. The employer has a legitimate interest in this in order to keep the additional risks associated with survivors’ pensions calculable. Article 2 of Directive 2000/78/EC is also not violated. Setting age limits in company social security systems is permitted under European law. Article 6 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law is also not violated. The restrictive requirement does not create any disadvantage for the spouses that they would not have had without the marriage. If there is an employment relationship backed by a pension commitment with an employer over whose assets insolvency proceedings are opened, entitlements acquired up to the opening of insolvency are pure insolvency claims that must be registered in the table. The pension protection association is responsible for legally non-forfeitable entitlements from a direct commitment. If the employment relationship continues after the opening of insolvency with effect for the insolvency estate, further entitlements to the detriment of the estate arise after the opening. If a business transfer occurs during the insolvency proceedings, the business purchaser is liable with regard to the transferred employees not only for the entitlements that arise in the period after the business transfer, but also for the entitlements that arise from the time the insolvency proceedings are opened up to the time of the transfer of operations. If the employee’s employment relationship is not transferred to the purchaser as a result of the transfer of the business, then according to a ruling by the Third Senate of December 22, 2009 (– 3 AZR 814/07 –), the insolvency administrator is responsible for the employee’s entitlements that were only acquired during the insolvency proceedings . The insolvency administrator can compensate for this under the conditions of Section 3 Paragraph 4 BetrAVG. The fact that the insolvency debtor’s business is not shut down but is continued by the purchaser does not contradict this. The right to severance pay according to Section 3 Paragraph 4 BetrAVG is intended to make the liquidation of a company in insolvency proceedings easier. The regulation does not serve to protect against termination, but only to protect creditors. Therefore, there is a complete cessation of operations in the sense. The regulation does not contain a limitation of the right to severance pay to entitlements of “small scope”. This would also run counter to the insolvency policy purpose of the norm. The exercise of the right to severance payment cannot be checked for possible unfairness. § 315 BGB does not apply directly or analogously to the insolvency administrator’s power of replacement. According to the case law of the Third Senate, whether the rights arising from an insurance relationship to implement the company pension scheme in the event of the employer’s insolvency are due to the estate or to the employee depends on whether the conditions of the insurance contract still allow the employee’s subscription right to be revoked. If the employer – in accordance with the legal standard of Section 159 VVG – only grants the insured employee a revocable subscription right, the rights from the insurance contract are entitled to the estate. However, if the subscription right is irrevocable, the rights from the insurance contract no longer belong to the employer’s assets from the outset and therefore no longer belong to the insolvency estate. Rather, they are entitled to the employee who has a right to separation according to Section 47 InsO. If the employer has granted the employee an irrevocable subscription right in the insurance contract, but has provided this with a reservation of revocation under certain conditions – so-called “limited irrevocable subscription right” – it depends on whether the conditions for the reservation of revocation are met.
Only then are the rights under the insurance contract available to the mass (cf. only BAG June 26, 1990 – 3 AZR 651/88 -; July 31, 2007 – 3 AZR 446/05 –). In a decision of June 15, 2010 (– 3 AZR 334/06 –) the Third Senate further developed this case law. When interpreting the insurance contract to determine whether the requirements for the right of revocation are met, the company pension law assessments must be taken into account. The purpose of the insurance contract is to provide the employee with claims based on the BetrAVG. Therefore, the contracting parties generally want to follow what is relevant under company pension law. If, according to the insurance conditions, the right of withdrawal may only be exercised if the employee leaves the employment relationship without the entitlements to company pension provision being legally non-forfeitable, a “leaving the employment relationship” does not occur if the employment relationship is terminated due to a transfer of the company transferred to another employer. In this case, the employment relationship also continues under company pension law, as the purchaser assumes the obligations arising from the pension commitment in accordance with Section 613a of the German Civil Code (BGB). In the event of a security event, the pension protection association as the provider of statutory insolvency insurance must only be responsible for company pension benefits in accordance with Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 BetrAVG. These are old-age, disability or survivor benefits that the employer promises the employee as a result of their employment relationship. With a judgment of March 16, 2010 (– 3 AZR 594/09 –), the Third Senate continued its previous case law on the concept of company pension provision (see BAG October 28, 2008 – 3 AZR 317/07 –). According to this, the employer’s promise must serve a pension purpose and the obligation to provide benefits must, according to the content of the promise, be triggered by a biological event mentioned in Section 1 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 BetrAVG. It is sufficient if the intended service partially assumes a biometric risk mentioned in the BetrAVG. The assumption of risk must serve to provide care, although the term must be interpreted broadly; Not only monetary benefits are recorded, but also benefits in kind and usage. Decisive for the assessment of whether a company pension scheme in the sense of. BetrAVG is not the reason for which the commitment was made, but rather what event triggers the provision. It is irrelevant whether the relevant regulations cover other risks in addition to those covered by the BetrAVG. As a result, the so-called house fire and the energy subsidy that replaces it, which is granted according to the general collective agreement for the employees of the Rhenish-Westphalian hard coal mining industry, is a company pension scheme if the respective obligation to provide benefits is based on a collective agreement, which in turn to biometric risks in the sense of. BetrAVG. If the house fire service is provided because the employees who have left the company are holders of a miner’s pension certificate, this is not the case. However, it is different if the benefit is granted because the employee receives a pension for miners in accordance with Section 45 Paragraph 3 SGB IV. The legal regulation is linked to the risk of disability. The fact that the house fire benefit is a claim regulated by a collective agreement is not harmful. According to the purpose of the BetrAVG, these are also covered by Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1. However, a company pension that is only paid because the employee receives adjustment benefits due to restructuring in the mining industry is not a company pension plan. The pension is linked to the risk of unemployment and therefore not to a biometric risk according to the BetrAVG.
According to the regulations in the unification agreement, the BetrAVG also applies in the new federal states if the pension commitment was made after December 31, 1991. It is sufficient that the beneficiary has received at least one confirming new commitment after the deadline. The Third Senate decided this in a judgment of January 19, 2010 (– 3 AZR 660/09 –), continuing its previous case law (see BAG December 19, 2000 – 3 AZR 451/99 –). If the BetrAVG is applicable, the rules on insolvency protection also apply. According to this, the Pension Security Association (PSV) must, in accordance with Section 7 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 2 BetrAVG, be responsible for legally vested pension entitlements that are based on direct insurance under the conditions regulated by law. If a partner also works for the company as an employee, insolvency protection only exists if the pension promise was made “on the occasion” of the employment relationship. This requires a causality test that takes all circumstances of the individual case into account. When calculating the length of service required for the vesting of the entitlements, not only times of an employment relationship, but also of “work for a company” in the sense of. Section 17 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 BetrAVG must be taken into account. What is crucial is that the respective activity was carried out for one and the same company. Periods of employment based on a membership relationship for a craft production cooperative under GDR law also count towards length of service. Insurance abuse, which, according to Section 7 Paragraph 5 BetrAVG, excludes the PSV’s obligation to take part, only occurs if the person entitled to pension benefits was involved in the abusive measure and was at least able to recognize the disapproved purpose of the measure. Merely lending to the insurance company with the employee’s consent is not an indication of this. However, PSV is not obligated to provide liability if an employee with a legally vested pension entitlement left the company before insolvency proceedings were opened and his claims against the insurance company were not affected by his departure and the insolvency of his previous employer. Whether the provisions in Section 7 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 2 in conjunction with In addition to the circumstances regulated by Section 1b Paragraph 2 Sentence 3 BetrAVG, the Senate has left it open that the PSV may also be liable in the event of damage to rights arising from direct insurance.
C. Vocational training
According to a decision of the Third Senate of July 27, 2010 (- 3 AZR 317/08 -), training in a recognized training occupation must generally take place in a vocational training relationship in the sense of. §§ 10 ff. BBiG must be carried out. This results from Section 4 Paragraph 2 BBiG. In addition – as Section 45 Paragraph 2 BBiG shows – the knowledge and skills necessary for training can also be acquired in an employment relationship. However, if the contracting parties conclude another contractual relationship in accordance with Section 26 BBiG – such as a “training contract” in the event of a dispute – this is in accordance with Section 134 BGB in conjunction with. Section 4 Paragraph 2 BBiG is void in its entirety. The invalidity of the contract means that the “training relationship” must be treated in accordance with the rules on defective (de facto) employment relationships, at least for the period of its implementation. In the absence of an effective remuneration agreement, the employee is entitled to the usual remuneration in the sense of the period in which the employment relationship was implemented. § 612 Paragraph 2 BGB. In the area of painting and varnishing, this is the remuneration that results from the collective agreement regulating a minimum wage for commercial employees in the painting and varnishing trade (TV minimum wage). The TV minimum wage was extended to all employment relationships falling within its scope by the Third Ordinance on Mandatory Working Conditions in the Painting and Varnishing Trade of August 31, 2005 and was therefore actually applied within the scope of its professional scope. Whether the collective exclusion periods are always part of the usual remuneration based on a collective agreement in the sense. § 612 Paragraph 2 BGB could stand there. In the Senate’s opinion, this applies at least to the exclusion periods regulated in the TV minimum wage due to the structure of the collective bargaining standards.
D. Competitor lawsuit
Nach Art. 33 Abs. 2 GG hat jeder Deutsche nach seiner Eignung, Befähigung und fachlichen Leistung gleichen Zugang zu jedem öffentlichen Amt. Die Bestimmung begrün-det ein grundrechtsgleiches Recht auf rechtsfehlerfreie Einbeziehung in die Bewerber-auswahl und auf deren Durchführung anhand der in Art. 33 Abs. 2 GG genannten Auswahlkriterien (BAG 23. Januar 2007 – 9 AZR 492/06 –). Nur der am besten geeignete Bewerber hat für die ausgeschriebene Stelle einen Besetzungsanspruch (BAG 21. Januar 2003 – 9 AZR 72/02 –). Bricht der öffentliche Arbeitgeber das Stellenbeset-zungsverfahren aus einem sachlich nachvollziehbaren Grund ab, gehen diese Rechte unter (BAG 24. März 2009 – 9 AZR 277/08 –). In Fortführung dieser Rechtsprechung hat der Neunte Senat in einem Urteil vom 17. August 2010 (- 9 AZR 347/09 -) decided that the court’s objection to a selection decision generally represents an objective reason for canceling a selection process, provided that the court’s statements give the employer legitimate reason to reconsider his decision-making process. The Senate approved these requirements in the event of a dispute. In the interim injunction proceedings, the State Labor Court complained that the employer had violated its provisions pursuant to Article 33 Paragraph 2 in conjunction with. The obligation derived from Article 19 Paragraph 4 of the Basic Law to record the performance evaluations and the essential selection considerations in writing is violated. Compliance with the documentation requirement is a mandatory prerequisite for constitutionally guaranteeing effective legal protection in the event of a complaint from a competitor. A violation of this constitutes an irremediable procedural defect which entitles the employer to terminate the selection process. Those: www.bundesarbeitsgericht.de