Discussion of the decision by Attorney Dr. jur. Frank Sievert, London: review of the decision of the District Labour Court Cologne document number 7 SA 857/08
's to be discussed ruling by the state labor court of Cologne deals with the question of the definition of bullying by verbal gaffes and socially adequate "rough manners" apart. For the first time made clear that bullying can also be caused by verbal gaffes. Relevant for the assessment of verbal attacks or comments are typical of social and workplace standards. For the question of which expression or as "normal Behavior "or a provider of general workplace conflict is a distinction based on the workplace conditions and the typical social structure of the parties make in the workplace. Example, this had run the country's labor court in Nuremberg's decision 6 Sa 537/04. There were comments like: "The applicant drive like a pig, the applicant had no knowledge of his job, he, the defendant will see to it that is given the applicant has no more leg to the ground." In the room. Explicitly stated the trial court that such remarks at a truck driving are significant criticism, which constitutes a crude criticism no formal insult. The verdict was
following facts:
The plaintiff, a 55-year-old baker who was not treated as severely disabled, worked in a bakery. During his tenure, the applicant was in the years 2006 and 2007 several requests because of too low performance in a loud tone, to pursue his work performance. This by the plaintiff as a "yell" perceived instructions of his superiors appreciated the applicant as bullying and demanded damages of € 20,000.00. The trial court dismissed the application having regard to the customary practice of social practice / statement of the supervisors, which preclude the adoption, by the yell the manager was bullying. Moreover, the court denied an intent to cause damage of the superior.
I. Reasons
The trial court makes clear in the grounds to see the conditions under which a collection of "verbal gaffes" as bullying can be. Conduct of third parties which are perceived as harassment by an employee, must therefore be differentiated from the still as a "workplace conflict general" tone to be regarded in the company. Here, after the conviction of the trial court decisively to focus on the type of operation and workers in the circle of normal social etiquette. In companies with high background noise, the instructions can be in a much louder tone of voice than in an office. Generally, the Court noted that it trades in any case "be a little firmer," so that the perceived as offensive by outsiders under circumstances where manners count to normal handling of the colleagues and superiors with each other. This is particularly so if the reason is the loud exchange of words in an objective criticism of the service rendered. Whenever because of the volume of used machinery and the merits of fair criticism of the finished work performance of an employee of either the rough or loud tone of voice will be considered in the first whether the new tone in the specific context or "socially adequate" was. Only if either the terms used or the tone as such in a particular case were no longer acceptable, there is room for an examination of the "intent to cause damage" of the offender and thus for bullying acts and suffering.
II consequences for the employee prevails
After that decision right now for reasons of security workers. That court has held in its decision clear limits of pain and suffering claim. The reality of life following the trial court has called for a serious violation of individual rights to to reach a damages claim. Whether an injury is serious it produces depends on whether the meaning and scope of the intervention, cause and motive and the degree of fault on the socially excessive, BAG NZA 2007, page 1154, BGHZ 160, page 298 The trial court emphasized that it "depended workplace conflicts general" for the award of damages to a definition of "bullying" and. Only when there is a long-term and systematic injury, you may be conscious and purposeful verbal hostility, a corresponding right to financial compensation exist, BAG NZA, page 781, BAG NZA 2007, page 11545.
The practical consequence of this decision is hard to miss. Workers who feel bullied because of improper or inappropriate tone along with vociferous criticism reproving only prospect of financial compensation if the statements made in this particular case have left the normal social framework.
Dr. jur. Frank Sievert participate
lawyer
Hamburg, 17.08.2009
www.kuendigungsschutz-aktuell.de
0 comments:
Post a Comment