Summary:
the employer terminates the employment relationship within the six-month waiting period of § 1 para 1 KSchG extraordinarily, the employee who wants to make the invalidity of the notice that, acc. § raise 13 paragraph 1 sentence 2, § 4, sentence 1 of the Consumer Protection Act within three weeks after receipt of notice dismissal action.
Issue:
The claimant was employed by the defendant since 11.08.2004 as a driver. After first issuing a warning, the defendant announced by letter of 01/03/2005 the employment relationship without notice for refusing to work. This letter is the applicant on the same day as received. The applicant and his received on 31.03.2005 to the Labour Court action, the ineffectiveness of the extraordinary termination asserted.
decision:
1) The BAG termination of 01/03/2005 acc. § 13 I 2, § 4, 1, § 7 KSchG declared effective. The applicant has until the end of the three-week period with the employment tribunal on 31/03/2005 submission received action. That says, according to BAG and not impede that the plaintiff has not met the waiting period of § 1 I Consumer Protection Act.
2) The limitation period of § 4 1 Consumer Protection Act also applies to ordinary termination within the first six months of employment. The wording of § 4 1 Consumer Protection Act contains no restrictions. By 1 January 2004, which came as amended by the Consumer Protection Act § 4, sentence 1 fordert vom Arbeitnehmer nicht nur, innerhalb der Drei-Wochen-Frist die mangelnde soziale Rechtfertigung geltend zu machen, er hat vielmehr auch innerhalb von drei Wochen nach Zugang der schriftlichen Kündigung Kündigungsschutzklage zu erheben, wenn er geltend machen will, die Kündigung sei aus anderen Gründen rechtsunwirksam. Damit werden auch außerhalb des Kündigungsschutzgesetzes liegende Unwirksamkeitsgründe von der Drei-Wochen-Frist erfasst. Das entspricht dem Zweck der Neuregelung des § 4 Satz 1 KSchG. Nach Ablauf der Drei-Wochen-Frist soll Klarheit darüber herrschen, ob die Kündigung wirksam ist oder nicht. Allein die mangelnde Schriftform kann noch nach Ablauf der Drei-Wochen-Frist geltend gemacht werden, weil § 4 Satz 1 KSchG nur für schriftliche Kündigungen gilt.
3) Nichts anderes gilt, wenn der Arbeitgeber innerhalb der Wartezeit des § 1 Abs. 1 KSchG eine außerordentliche Kündigung erklärt.
4) § 13 Abs. 1 Satz 2 KSchG verweist für die Geltendmachung der Rechtsunwirksamkeit einer außerordentlichen Kündigung einschränkungslos auf § 4 Satz 1 und die §§ 5 bis 7 KSchG.
5) Die Anwendung von § 13 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 4 Satz 1 KSchG auf außerordentliche Kündigungen innerhalb der Wartezeit des § 1 Abs. 1 KSchG entspricht dem Zweck der Drei-Wochen-Frist, alsbald Klarheit zu erlangen, whether the termination is effective or not. There is no reason for people who have not yet completed the qualifying period, exempt from that requirement. On the contrary, would find the limitation period of § 4, sentence 1 of the Consumer Protection Act not to extraordinary termination within the waiting period of § 1 para 1 KSchG application could temporarily employed workers, the ineffectiveness of the extraordinary termination to the border of the forfeiture (§ 242 BGB) claim . make This would allow workers who are terminated within the waiting period of § 1 para 1 Consumer Protection Act, better off compared to workers who have been employed for many years and therefore, under § 13 para 1 sentence 2, § 4, sentence 1 to the Consumer Protection Act within the period of three weeks bring wrongful dismissal to the entry of the default effect of § 7 to prevent the Consumer Protection Act. For this unterschiedlicheBehandlung there is no objective reason.
result Since the plaintiff only on 31.03.2005 after the three-week period of § 4 1 Consumer Protection Act against him at 01.03. raised in 2005 received by, extraordinary termination to the Labour Court dismissal action, notice shall be in accordance. § 13 I 2, § 7 of the Consumer Protection Act to be effective.
The entire decision can be found at:
0 comments:
Post a Comment