Bee sting case
A judgment of the German Federal Labor Court (BAG) issued on May 17, 1984, became known as the bee sting case (Az. 2 AZR 3/83; NJW 1985, 284–285; NZA 1985, 91; DB 1984, 2702). In it, it was decided by the highest labor court in Germany that in the event of theft against one's own employer, dismissal without notice can be permissible even if the stolen item is of little value.
facts
An employee had been dismissed without notice by her employer with the approval of the works council because she had taken a piece of bee sting cake that was intended for sale from the cake counter and consumed it without paying for it.
On the other hand, the employee initially successfully sued (1st instance: ArbG Essen - June 22, 1982 - AZ: 6 Ca 1125/82) and achieved the continuation of the employment relationship . The labor court did not consider a termination without notice to be justified because of the minor damage.
The employer was then successful in the appeal (2nd instance: LAG Düsseldorf - December 1, 1982 - AZ: 12 Sa 1311/82) with his application to reinterpret the notice given without notice into a timely one.
Against the LAG judgment both parties filed revision one at BAG. This allowed both revisions. The matter was referred back to the court of appeal for a decision on termination without notice. Nevertheless, the basic legal positions of the BAG can be found in the grounds of the judgment.
Legal basis for termination without notice
Termination without notice is permitted under German law if
- for them an important reason exists,
- the circumstances of the individual case appreciated and
- the interests of employees and employers were weighed against each other
and thereafter the continuation of the employment relationship is no longer reasonable ( § 626 BGB ).
Legal opinion of the Federal Labor Court
The theft itself fulfills the criterion of the legal concept of good cause within the meaning of § 626 BGB , regardless of the value of the stolen item . Theft can - but always taking into account the individual case and after balancing the interests of both parties - justify termination without notice even if the stolen item is of little value.
In this case, the BAG did not have to decide whether the amount of damage incurred actually justified the termination without notice after weighing the circumstances of the individual case and the interests of both sides, as the case had to be referred back to the LArbG because of the fact that the facts were still to be clarified.
Individual evidence
- ↑ Bee sting case: saleswoman who consumes a piece of bee sting worth a few cents can be terminated without notice - free-urteile.de, editorial summary of important judgments, November 11, 2009
