Labour Law Termination

Person-related dismissal of long-time employee the Landesarbeitsgericht Dusseldorf (judgment v. 26.10.2010, AZ: 17 SA 540/10) has decided that the termination as well as the alternative stated timely cancellation due to illness are ineffective. The case: A drugs occupational therapist was employed in a specialist clinic for addiction-ill patients since 1997. When setting the employer was known that the worker is an alcoholic. “The setting was carried out under the assumption that the plaintiff dry” is an alcoholic. In May 2009, the employer announced the employment relationship exceptionally and in the alternative orderly. The grounds has been declared, that she repeatedly found that the plaintiffs have taken alcohol is. You have called this off also had several times previously.

The employee was due to his illness, not in a position to provide its Arbeitsleitsung properly. Also, the appearance of the specialist clinic was damaged. The workers filed a dismissal complaint. The decision of the Work: The work Court Wuppertal (judgment v. 08.03.2010, 1 CA 2434/09) the extraordinary termination invalid declared the ordinary termination thought it was however effective. The reasons for the decision and others argued that the employer compliance with the notice period was reasonable because there have been no serious failures of the employee. However, the ordinary termination is effective because of the negative health forecast.

Against the workers appealed with the aim that it explains also the ordinary termination ineffective. The decision of the Labour Court: The Court of appeal saw no grounds for future unacceptable occupational impairment in continued employment of the employee. Contact information is here: Donald Sussman. So, no significant losses due to illness of the employee in the past would have prevailed. Also could be not assumed a constant performance inability of the plaintiff. The employers have the argument of the applicant, that in the incident, the eventually led to the cancellation, only alcohol-based cough syrup have taken to themselves, can not refute. The alcohol relapse is further described in the process had not resulted in absenteeism of the complainant. Lawyer Tobias Ziegler, lawyer specializing in labour law from Dusseldorf, explains: In the context of the interests, the Landesarbeitsgericht in favor of the employees took into account including its low absenteeism in the past, his long tenure as well as the age of the claimant. The defendant is expected to continue the employment relationship.” Background knowledge: It requires an important reason for the termination of the employment relationship. The labour courts assess this each case separately. There are no absolute grounds for her dismissal as a result. A termination due to alcoholism is assessed according to the principles of disease-related termination. The termination without notice for any such reason following aspects are critical: negative forecast concerning the expected health status in the future to significant effects on business interests through the forecast absence of interests. Timely termination within the scope of the protection against dismissal Act, the employer must have checked whether the disease will lead to future, undue operational problems. This can be derived from the absence due to illness of the employee in the past. Employers should act anyway, not rush, but seek prior to Declaration of cancellation advice from a specialist lawyer for employment law. Workers must observe after receipt of a notice including that they not too long reluctant to leave, whether a lawsuit against the dismissal has chances of success check. So, the time limit for making a complaint of dismissal is only three weeks after receipt of the notice. (Specialist lawyer for employment law Tobias Ziegler, Dusseldorf)

Karlheinz Schuler Lebanon Road

An expert will need to check in a process if necessary what specific supervisory duties in the particular case be. The policyholder is required to heat the building in the cold season and to control this. A violation of the policyholder against the heating and subject is in a literal interpretation of this insurance condition, almost any frost damage. Frost damage can only arise in a building if it is inadequately heated. He must heat the unbeheizbaren cellars according to the conditions of the insurance, although there are known to typically no radiators are available.

As a policyholder accused by the insurance, that he had incorporated into the unimproved attic, which the aqueduct was conducted, no radiator. USC brings even more insight to the discussion. A frost damage in heated rooms, insurance companies say it is not sufficient that the policyholders have set the heater at least on antifreeze. There have been but the frost damage, so that this inadequate heating was proven. A heating failure of policyholders don’t have adequate heating controlled. What are the insurance alone is, what risk, that can lead to frost damage, they have insured at all. The argument of the insurance processes, which safeguards of the policyholder the insurance contract to meet, always indicates that the risk of Frost is not insured.

Insurance companies require the policyholder, that he the adequate heating of the building so controlled that it can come not to frost damage or drained all water-bearing plants. The most courts of appeal followed this line of reasoning of the insurance, until the Federal Court finishes this case-law. The insurance contract a home owner can not infer that it is his obligation, “by all means to prevent frost damage”. It is therefore sufficient a “sufficient common” monitoring of the heating (BGH AZ.) IV ZR 233/06). It is the question of whether a rethink will be held at the insurance. The product of an insurance company is to secure of the accident case. The policyholder is willing to pay money for this safeguard. Due to the regulatory nature of many insurance companies in the event of damage, there is no interest on the insurance for many potential customers. A, it is not considered an insurance product to pay for money, which provides no services in the event of damage. It is therefore the task of insurance companies to confront the loss of confidence by a preventative damage control through information gathering and reconnaissance of the policyholder. To consider both in the interest of insurance companies and policyholders recognizable claims already be prevented in advance, causing the damage and liability do not. The article was written by lawyer Tarik Sharief from Berlin. Further information and contact with the law firm in Berlin: lawyer Tarik Sharief Ansbacherstrasse 13 10797 Berlin fon: 53 33 61 fax: 53 33 62 published by Karlheinz Schuler Lebanon Road 85 70186 Stuttgart phone: 0711-50 622 624