Germany

AuthorDirectorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (European Commission), European Centre of Expertise (ECE)
Pages24-26
Flash Re por t 1 2/2018
Decem ber 20 18
24
Germ any
Sum ma ry
(I ) The decision of t he CJEU in case C-555/ 07, 19 January 201 0, cük deveci has
finally been transp osed by t he leg islat or.
(I I) Accor ding to the Federal Constit utional Cour t, a difference in t reat men t between
union ised and non-
unionised w ork er s in a collective agreem ent is generally in line
with the Constit ution.
(I I I) Accor ding to th e Feder al La bour Cour t, a p rovi sion in a c ollect ive agr eeme nt can
be in t er preted as m eaning that overt ime bonuses f or part -
tim e em ployees m ust be
paid for w or kin g t im e t hat exceeds th e part-
time qu ot a but does not exceed th e
work ing tim e of a full-tim e post .
(I V) Th e Feder al Labour Cour t h as he ld t hat section 41 sent ence 3 of th e Soci al Code
VI, which allows t h e part ies to the employm ent contract t o post pone the dat e of
terminat ion by agreem ent in t h e ev en t of t he em ploy ee r eaching the st andar d
retirem ent ag e, is i n lin e wi th EU law.
____ ___ ________ ___ ________ ___ ________ ___ _____ ___ ___ _____ ___ ___ _____ __
1 Nation al Le gislat ion
1.1 Modificat ion of d ismissa l pr otectio n
As of 01 Janu ar y 2 019, Section 62 2(2) sentence 2 of t h e Civil Cod e (Bü rger liches
Geset zbuch) w ill be r epealed. Sect ion 29( 4 ) sentence 2 of t he Act on Hom ew or k er s
(‘Heim ar beit sgesetz’) w hich ha s an ide nt ical wor din g, will be rep eale d as wel l. Accord ing
to t hese pr ovisions, periods of employ m ent prior to the employee’s (or hom ewor ker’s)
25th birt hday were n ot taken int o accoun t t o cal culat e the r eleva nt period of notice.
622( 2 ) sentence 2 of th e Civ il Code has not b een applicable for som e t im e. On
19 Janu ar y 2 010, t he CJEU decided in case C-55 5/ 07, 19 Jan uary 2010, kdeveci
th at this prov ision violat es EU law , w hich prohibit s discrim ination on g rounds of age.
Wit h t he r epeal of 6 22( 2) sentence 2, this d ecision will finally be t ransposed.
A p ress release from the Feder al Min istr y of Labour and Social Affairs i s available here.
2 Cou rt Rulings
2.1 Fr eedo m of associa tio n
Feder al Con stit ution al Cou rt, No. 1 BvR 1 278 /16, 14 Novem ber 2018
Accor ding to the judgment of th e Federal Constit ution Court in case 1 Bv R 1 278 / 1 6,
14 Nov ember 20 18, a difference in treat m en t bet w een unionised and non-un ionise d
wo rker s in a co llect ive agreem ent is gener ally in line wi th the Con stit ut ion. Specifically ,
such differentiat ion does not breach the so-called negat ive f reedom of association ,
wh ich is part of th e freedom of associat ion as guaranteed in Article 9 ( 3) of the
Const itu tion .
In the present case, th e com plainant challeng ed provisions on bridging and sev er an ce
pay me nts in a coll ecti ve a greem ent. Accord ing to thi s agr eem ent, cer tain benefits w ere
only t o be paid t o em ployees who were m embers of t he union that had concluded the
col lecti ve agre emen t on a n ag reed dat e. The c omp laina nt as n ot ent itle d t o t he b enef its
because he did not belong to a trade union. The Federal Constitutional Cou rt r ej ected
th e claim . I n t he view of the Cou rt, Article 9 ( 3) of the Constit ution also protect s the
fr eedom t o not join a trade unio n. Therefore , no com pulsi on o r pr essur e to join ma y be

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT