Federal Leave Act

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Basic data
Title: Minimum Leave Act for Employees
Short title: Federal Leave Act
Abbreviation: BUrlG
Type: Federal law
Scope: Federal Republic of Germany
Legal matter: Employment Law
References : 800-4
Issued on: January 8, 1963
( Federal Law Gazette I p. 2 )
Entry into force on: January 1, 1963
Last change by: Art. 3 para. 3 G of April 20, 2013
( Federal Law Gazette I p. 868, 914 )
Effective date of the
last change: 		August 1, 2013
(Art. 7 Paragraph 1 G of April 20, 2013)
GESTA : G048
Weblink: Text of the BUrlG
Please note the note on the applicable legal version.

The Federal Vacation Act (BUrlG) regulates vacation leave in Germany.

It was announced on January 8, 1963 and, as a minimum regulation, supplements the various individual agreements between the parties to the collective bargaining agreement for each industry and each country that had previously existed alone and since then . The purpose of the law is social work protection .

As the full title of the Minimum Leave Act for Employees already states, the law only regulates the extent to which the employer must grant the employee at least paid vacation leave . According to § 2 , this includes all workers, salaried employees and persons similar to employees (i.e. those who are to be regarded as employees due to their economic dependence on a client). The minimum holiday entitlement is 24 working days, whereby, due to the special standard in Section 3 (2), Saturdays are also counted as working days , so that the holiday entitlement must be converted to working days per week. In the first six months, the employee receives 1/12 of the annual vacation for every full month of employment , Section 5 . Full vacation entitlement is only acquired after the waiting period of six months ( § 4 ) has expired . Despite the vacation entitlement that has already arisen, often no vacation is requested in the first six months of a new employment relationship. The waiting period only has to be fulfilled once in an employment relationship. In the following years, the employee is entitled to the full annual vacation at the beginning of each new calendar year. The paid while on holiday to charge is based on the average earnings, the employee has received in the last 13 weeks before the start of the holiday, except for the addition of overtime paid employment income . Pursuant to Section 8 , gainful employment that contradicts the recreational purpose of the vacation is not permitted during vacation.

For many employees, the Federal Leave Act does not provide the basis for annual leave when it comes to the length of leave because collective agreements and individual employment contracts often provide more favorable regulations for employees. In many collective agreements, annual leave is 30 working days (= 36 working days), for example in TVöD and TV-L .

The Federal Holiday Act also does not apply to underage employees with regard to the length of leave. According to Section 19 of the Youth Labor Protection Act, they are entitled to vacation between 25 and 30 working days (depending on age). Severely disabled people are also entitled to additional leave in accordance with Section 208 of Book IX of the Social Code.

Other regulations of the BUrlG, such as B. the priority of the employee's wishes according to § 7 BUrlG or the indispensability apply regardless of the question of whether a collective agreement, employment contract or another law applies.

The statutory minimum vacation must be taken as free time and must not be paid out. This results from § 8 BUrlG, which prohibits paid employment during the vacation and from the reverse of § 7 BUrlG sentence 4, which provides for a payment at the end of employment. Any additional leave granted in excess of the statutory minimum may also be paid out.

Vacation not taken in the calendar year may be carried over to the next year if this is justified by urgent operational reasons or reasons relating to the person of the employee (Section 7 BUrlG, Paragraph 3). However, the courts have low requirements for this, so that the justifying reasons are usually present. The transferred vacation must be granted and taken by March 31 of the following year. Otherwise it will expire if the employer has worked to ensure that the employee takes the vacation in good time and has indicated that it will otherwise expire.

For officials and judges of the annual holiday is relaxing holiday regulations of the federal and state regulated.

For soldiers in the Bundeswehr, vacation entitlements are regulated in the Soldiers' Leave Ordinance.

A distinction must be made between the claim to

  • Granting of vacation leave
  • Payment of vacation compensation
  • Payment of vacation pay

The right to vacation

A distinction must be made between a primary entitlement to the granting of vacation leave and a secondary claim for compensation for the granting of vacation leave (hereinafter: vacation).

The primary performance entitlement to vacation leave

General

Legal nature

The vacation entitlement is an exemption from the employer, which is conditional on the BUrlG, to be released from the contractual duty to work without affecting the obligation to pay the wages ( remuneration theory ; BAG since 1982).

Basis of claim

The basis for the entitlement to the statutory right to recovery is § 1 BUrlG i. V. with § 611 BGB. Any further entitlement requires other grounds for entitlement (employment contract, collective bargaining agreement, special additional protective provisions).

Entitlement building

The entitlement to the granting of leave must arise, must not expire and must be enforceable.

Creation of the entitlement to the grant of leave

The entitlement to vacation requires the applicability of the BUrlG ( § 2 BUrlG) and a certain minimum duration of the employment relationship. The duration of the vacation is determined according to §§ 3–7 BUrlG.

Applicability of the BUrlG

The BUrlG applies to all employees and to those employed for their vocational training ( § 2 sentence 1 BUrlG) as well as to employee-like persons in general (§ 2 sentence 2 Hs. 1 BUrlG) with particularities for home work regulated in § 12 BUrlG ( § 2 sentence 2 Hs. 2 BUrlG).

The distinction between an employee-like person within the meaning of Section 2 sentence 2 BUrlG and a self-employed person is determined by the general characteristics. Section 12a TVG is not to be used directly. The actual performance of work in the vacation year is not a prerequisite for the vacation entitlement (BAG since 1982). Demanding vacation despite year-round incapacity for work is also not illegal i. S. d. § 242 BGB (BAG).

Assertion by the employee

The employee must assert his vacation entitlement in the non-terminated and in the terminated employment relationship "expressly in the sense of § 284 BGB" (BAG [September 18, 2001] - 9 AZR 570/00 - NZA 02, 895). If the employee fails to take the vacation, the vacation entitlement expires at the end of the vacation year or the transfer period. The assertion must be clear, unconditional and sufficiently specific. In the filing of the dismissal protection suit, there is still no assertion of the vacation entitlement.

The duration of the vacation (§§ 3–6 BUrlG)
Statutory minimum vacation

According to Section 3 (1) BUrlG, the statutory minimum vacation is 24 working days. Further federal legal provisions on the duration of vacation can be found in Sections 56 to 64 SeeArbG , Section 208 SGB ​​IX , Section 19 JArbSchG and Section 17 BEEG . In a collective agreement or in the employment contract, a higher than the legal minimum vacation can be agreed (often), but not less favorable ( § 13 Abs. 1 S. 1 BUrlG).

The statutory minimum vacation is based on a 6-day week. If the weekly working time is distributed differently, the entitlement must be converted to the rate of three. In the case of a 5-day week, the statutory vacation entitlement is the equivalent of 20 working days. In all cases it corresponds to four working weeks.

If a collective agreement grants an above-statutory vacation entitlement, in case of doubt this is based on a 5-day week. If the working hours are different, the entitlement must be converted accordingly.

With flexible working hours , where the regular contractual working is achieved in a multi-week cycle, or a year, is not on the ratio of hours worked, but on the number of a work requirement remedy occupied working days.

If the working days that are subject to compulsory work can only be determined on the basis of an annual comparison, then these days must be set in relation to the legally possible working days. The BAG assumes 312 possible working days per year for the 6-day week and 260 possible working days for the 5-day week. Changes to the distribution of working hours within the respective reference period must be taken into account. It may then be that the length of the vacation has to be calculated several times.

If the number of weekly working days changes during the calendar year, as is the case when switching from full-time to part- time employment, the vacation entitlement acquired full-time may not be reduced proportionately after switching to part-time on fewer days of the week.

Entitlement to full leave

Entitlement to full leave only arises when the waiting period of six months has expired ( Section 4 (1) BUrlG). Sections 186, 187 BGB apply to the calculation of the deadline . It does not depend on the time of the conclusion of the contract, but on the time of the intended start of work. If an employment relationship begins with the beginning of the day, this day is counted, even if work does not start until the day is over or the employee is unable to work due to illness, a public holiday, etc.

  • Example 1: On January 10th, an employment relationship is established for the period from February 1st. The employment relationship ends on August 20th. → The employee is entitled to full annual leave even though he has not worked all year.
  • Example 2: On December 10, 2007, an employment relationship starting on January 1, 2008 is agreed. The employment relationship will end on June 30, 2008.
→ This borderline case is controversial. According to one opinion, there is only a 6/12 entitlement, as Section 4 BUrlG states that the entitlement to full leave only arises “after” the waiting period has expired. A counter-opinion comes to a 12/12 claim.

Once the waiting period has been fulfilled, the vacation entitlement arises at the beginning of the vacation year.

After the waiting period has been fulfilled, the full leave entitlement according to Section 5 (1) c) BUrlG by one twelfth of the annual vacation for each incomplete month of the employment relationship in the first half of a calendar year (for example if the employee leaves the employment relationship in the first half of the calendar year).

  • Example 1: Start of the employment relationship on February 1, 2007. End of the employment relationship on February 15, 2008. → In 2007, the employee acquired a 100% full leave entitlement (§§ 3 Paragraph 1, 4 BUrlG). For 2008, the full leave entitlement initially arose on January 1, 2008. However, it has been reduced to 1/12 (only 1 full month) in accordance with Section 5 (1) c) BUrlG.
  • Example 2: Start of employment on February 1, 2007. End of employment on July 15, 2008. → The employee acquired full leave entitlement in 2007 and 2008.
Partial leave entitlement

According to Section 5 (1) a) BUrlG, a partial leave entitlement arises if the employee does not acquire full entitlement due to failure to meet the waiting period in this calendar year.

  • Example: Start of employment on July 15, 2007; End after January 1, 2008. → In 2007, the employee has a partial vacation entitlement in accordance with Section 5 (1) a) BUrlG (in the amount of 5/12 of the annual vacation).

According to Section 5 (1) b) BUrlG, the employee is entitled to partial leave if he leaves the employment relationship before the waiting period has been completed.

  • Example: Start of employment on July 15, 2007; End on September 20, 2007. → Partial leave entitlement according to Section 5 (1) b) BUrlG (in the amount of 2/12 of the annual leave).

According to § 5 Abs. 1 BUrlG, in the above cases of partial leave entitlement there is only one full month entitlement to 1/12 of the full leave. This month does not have to be exactly a calendar month (see example above).

The disputed question is when exactly the above partial leave entitlements are due.

Rounding up rule

According to Section 5 (2) BUrlG, fractions of vacation days that amount to at least half a day are rounded up to full vacation days. Whether this also applies to non-statutory (employment / collective agreement) vacation entitlements is viewed differently.

Exclusion of duplicate claims

There is no entitlement to vacation if the employee has already been granted vacation for the current calendar year by a previous employer.

  • Example: 1. Employment relationship: start on January 1, 1999; End on September 30, 2007. Granting of full annual leave for 2007 in June 2007. 2. Employment relationship: Start: October 1, 2007, end after January 1, 2008. → The partial leave entitlement in the 2nd employment relationship according to § 5 Para. 1 a) BUrlG in the amount of 3/12 of full leave is excluded according to Section 6 (1) BUrlG.

In order for a new employer to find out about this, the old one must issue the employee with a vacation certificate (Section 6 (2) BUrlG) and the employee must present it to the new employer.

No expiry of the vacation entitlement

§ 9 Illness during vacation: If an employee falls ill during vacation, the days of incapacity for work documented by a doctor's certificate are not counted towards the annual vacation.

Fulfillment

The vacation entitlement expires through effective fulfillment ( § 362 BGB). The employer has the additional obligation to schedule the vacation. The employee is not entitled to self-leave.

In order to fulfill the vacation entitlement, the employer's act of fulfillment and the employee's success in fulfillment are required.

Declaration of exemption from the employer

The employer must explain to the employee that he is granting leave. This declaration must initially be effective and must not subsequently become ineffective.

The declaration of the granting of vacation by the employer
To fulfill the vacation entitlement, the employer must submit a declaration of exemption . It should be noted that not every declaration of exemption from the duty to work is sufficient, but that this should clearly serve the employee to fulfill the entitlement to vacation.
The vacation permit can also be granted tacitly (implied). For example, if the employer has not commented on the employee's wish for a vacation for a "long time". The decisive factor is always the design in the individual case, taking into account all circumstances, in particular operational habits.
In case of doubt, the employee should get the vacation grant from the employer in writing.
If the employer releases the employee from the obligation to work after giving notice without further explanation, this is not yet an effective declaration of leave. I.e. not every time off from work is a time off from work for the purpose of granting vacation leave.
  • Exemption in connection with the granting of leave
The declaration that the (irrevocable) exemption takes place, taking into account vacation entitlements, has the effect that the consequences under vacation law occur for the duration of the exemption, such as B. Vacation pay, additional vacation pay and irrevocable leave of absence.
The indeterminacy of the start and end of the vacation, which is associated with an irrevocable leave of absence in connection with the granting of vacation, is harmless. "If the employer does not specify the exact timing of the vacation and the number of vacation days, as in the case of a dispute, the employee can regularly infer from this that either the employer grants him the entire period of notice as vacation or the employer at least lets him take care of the time To determine the position of the vacation days to which he is entitled within the unconditionally granted period of exemption. In both cases, the employee can easily see that he no longer has to reckon with having to work for the rest of his employment relationship ”.
  • Not through revocable exemption
A revocable exemption cannot fulfill a vacation entitlement. Therefore, the settlement clause with revocable exemption chosen with regard to the BSG case law does not lead to the effective granting of leave. For example, the following comparison does not lead to the fulfillment of a vacation entitlement:
"The employee is revocably released until the end of the notice period, taking into account any vacation entitlement ."
The effectiveness of the vacation grant
The employer's granting of leave must be effective under individual and collective law. The individual legal effectiveness is determined solely in accordance with § 7 Paragraph 1, 2 BUrlG and not in accordance with § 315 Paragraph 3 BGB. 'The BAG takes the opposite view.
  • Taking into account the wishes of the employee
According to Section 7 (1) sentence 1 BUrlG, the employer must take the employee's vacation wishes into account when granting vacation. If the employer does not take the employee's wishes into account, the employee can reject the employer's specification of the services.
In addition, the employee not only has to object, but also express a different holiday request himself. If the employee objects to the granting of vacation, this alone does not constitute an expression of a vacation request within the meaning of Section 7 (1) BUrlG.
If the employer terminates the employee and the employer grants the employee vacation during the notice period, the employee generally has no right to refuse acceptance. The BUrlG primarily serves to grant vacation leave and not to produce vacation compensation claims.
  • Independence from continued pay
The effectiveness of the granting of vacation does not depend on the employer paying the employee the vacation pay during the vacation .
  • Denomination prohibition when granting vacation
The prohibition of denominations in Section 7 (2) BUrlG only applies to statutory leave . A vacation grant that violates this is ineffective. According to Section 7 (2) sentence 1 BUrlG, statutory annual leave must be granted “continuously”. This only does not apply if “urgent operational or personal reasons make it necessary to split the vacation”. If the vacation cannot be granted consecutively for these reasons, at least 12 working days are to be granted as vacation, § 7 Abs. 2 S. 2 BUrlG.
According to the prevailing view, a mere wish of the employee is not sufficient for a denomination to be permissible.
According to Section 13 (1) sentence 3 BUrlG, only Section 7 (2) sentence 2 BUrlG can be deviated from to the disadvantage of the employee. This presupposes that the conditions of Section 7 (2) sentence 1 BUrlG are present. This regulation is often violated. The granting of vacation is then "de iure" ineffective.
If the parties act amicably, it may be illegal on the part of the employee ( § 242 BGB) to invoke the ineffectiveness of the vacation grant.
  • Ineffectiveness under collective law
If there is a works council , the collective distribution of vacation (example: company vacation ), the establishment of general vacation principles, and the establishment of a vacation schedule are subject to co-determination in accordance with Section 87 (1) No. 5 BetrVG. The right of co-determination also extends to “the determination of the timing of the leave for individual employees if no agreement is reached between the employer and the employees involved” (Section 87 (1) No. 5 BetrVG). A violation of the co-determination right of § 87 Abs. 1 Nr. 5 BetrVG renders the grant of vacation ineffective. The same applies in the public service within the framework of co-determination by a staff council according to the respective staff representation law .
No termination of the legal effect of granting vacation
  • agreement
Holidays that have already been granted can (and often will) be changed at any time by mutual agreement.
  • No unilateral revocation
Holidays that have been effectively granted cannot be unilaterally revoked by the employer and cannot be rejected by the employee.
If the grant of leave is irrevocably granted, the employer cannot unilaterally reverse (revoke) it. Something else comes into play if the employer is in dire straits. There are different perspectives in detail.
If the employer retrospectively grants too much vacation due to the employee leaving the company prematurely, he can stipulate the excess vacation granted.
Theoretically, a challenge to the declaration of exemption is possible.
  • Loss of the business basis ( § 313 BGB)
Theoretically also a loss of the business basis.
The occurrence of the fulfillment success

The vacation entitlement is only fulfilled if the vacation success, i. H. the exemption from the duty to work also occurs. If it is formulated that the performance will be successful if the employee makes use of the declaration of exemption and takes the vacation, this is misleading: there is no need for acceptance on the part of the employee and the performance also occurs against the will of the employee if the declaration of exemption is effective is.

However, fulfillment can fail for legal reasons because

  • a subsequent reallocation of a period of non-work that has already taken place is not legally possible (time off without granting vacation; periods of default by the employer);
  • the employee has already been released from his duty to work in some other way;
  • the employee has no work obligation from which he could be exempted because he is ill and unable to work.
  • No subsequent reassignment possible : periods in which the employee was not working but had not been granted vacation cannot be declared as vacation by the employer. However, the comparison practice mostly disregards this.
  • No ongoing reallocation possible : If the employee is already released for other reasons, he cannot be additionally released for the purpose of granting vacation leave.
  • No leave granted in the event of incapacity for work ( § 9 BUrlG): If the employee is ill and unable to work, he is not obliged to work and cannot be released from it. If the employee becomes ill during the vacation, § 9 BUrlG orders that the days of proven incapacity for work are not counted towards the annual vacation.
  • Transferability of § 9 BUrlG to other cases of subsequent impossibility? : According to a controversial opinion, § 9 BUrlG does not apply accordingly to other cases of subsequent impossibility. Example: Vacation granted in January for July; Employment ban from April until birth in October.
Time limitation

The vacation entitlement can expire according to § 7 III BUrlG. This standard also applies to any statutory or employment contract vacation entitlement, if no deviating regulation has been made.

The ECJ has now finally decided whether EU law is violated in the case of a time limit due to persistent incapacity to work .

According to § 7 Abs. 3 BUrlG vacation entitlement expires on December 31st. of one year (Section 7 (3) sentence 1 BUrlG), unless urgent operational reasons or reasons relating to the employee justify a transfer to the following year (Section 7 (3) sentence 2 BUrlG) or a case of Partial leave according to § 5 Paragraph 1 Letter a BUrlG exists and the employee requests a transfer (§ 7 Paragraph 3 Sentence 4 BUrlG).

If a transfer takes place in accordance with Section 7 (3) sentence 2 BUrlG, the vacation entitlement expires on March 31 of the following year at the latest.

  • Example: The employee has been working a 5-day week since 2003, did not have any vacation leave in 2007, becomes unable to work 15 working days before December 31, 2007 and becomes ill
a) not until April 15, 2008 healthy again;
b) will get well 5 working days before March 31, 2008.

“The employee was entitled to full leave of 20 working days, which expired on December 31, 2007 in accordance with Section 7 (3) sentence 1 BUrlG in the amount of 5 working days, since it was not his inability to work, but his inactivity for the impossibility of taking the vacation in the year 2007 to be taken was causal. Of the 15 days carried over to the first quarter of 2008 in accordance with Section 7 (3) sentence 2 BUrlG, all days expire in accordance with variant a) in accordance with Section 7 (3) sentence 3 BUrlG and only 10 days in variant b) if the employee claims and receives the remaining vacation days in good time before March 31, 2008. "

The contracting parties are free (within limits) to disregard the statutory regulation in favor of the employee, d. H. to agree on the transfer to the following year or beyond the first quarter of the following year. The employee should best get this in writing to avoid later disputes.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg ruled in January 2009 that employees should not lose their entitlement to paid annual leave if they could not take it due to illness. The ECJ thus contradicts the Federal Holiday Act and sees it as a violation of EU Directive 2003/88 . Therefore the German regulation is inadmissible. A loss of vacation entitlement is only justified if the workers concerned actually had the opportunity to take their vacation. In its Schultz-Hoff decision , the ECJ stated that Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 / EC is to be interpreted in such a way that it contradicts national laws or practices according to which no financial remuneration is paid for annual leave not taken at the end of the employment relationship if the employee was on sick leave or on sick leave during all or part of the reference period and / or transfer period and was therefore unable to exercise his entitlement to annual paid leave. In application of these established principles, § 7 Paragraph 3, Paragraph 4 BUrlG is to be understood as meaning that statutory vacation compensation claims do not expire if an employee falls ill by the end of the vacation year and / or the transfer period and is therefore unable to work. The previous case law of the BAG, which represented the opposite, has thus been abandoned.

On April 15, 2010, the Hamm LAG submitted the question to the ECJ for a decision as to whether national law permissibly regulates the expiry of vacation entitlements for employees with long-term illnesses after a certain period of time and - if so - whether a minimum period of 18 months should be observed ( File number at the ECJ: C-214/10). Advocate General Trstenjak recently proposed to the ECJ in her Opinion that both the possibility of expiry and a transfer limitation of 18 months should be considered compatible with Community law.

Enforceability: no right of the employer to refuse performance

According to § 7 Abs. 1 S. 1 Hs. 2 BUrlG the employer has the right to refuse performance with regard to a vacation request of the employee if “urgent operational issues or vacation requests of other employees oppose this”. However, this only applies to vacation from the current calendar year, but not to transferred "old vacation" and also not to a vacation request after a measure of medical care or rehabilitation (§ 7 Abs. 1 S. 2 BUrlG).

The employer must present and prove the requirements for his right to refuse performance .

Vacation entitlement as a secondary claim for damages

According to the case law of the BAG, "the vacation entitlement is converted into a claim for damages aimed at granting replacement vacation as restitution in rem if the employer does not grant the vacation requested in good time and the vacation expires due to its time limit, Section 275 (1) and (4) , Section 280 Paragraph 1, Section 283 Sentence 1, Section 286 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1, Section 249 Paragraph 1 BGB ".

  • Example: The employee requests vacation leave. The employer unlawfully refuses to do this (for example in the calendar year because the reasons in Section 7 (1) sentence 1 BUrlG are not present or in the transfer period within the meaning of Section 7 (3) sentence 3 BUrlG (first quarter of the following year) because then the employer must definitely grant leave). With December 31 / December 31 March the primary vacation entitlement expires. However, the employee has a claim for damages against the employer, primarily aimed at restitution in kind , in the same amount. This is no longer subject to the deadline system of Section 7 (3) BUrlG (however, there may be deadlines).

Employment during vacation

According to § 8 BUrlG, the employee may not exercise any gainful activity during the vacation that contradicts the vacation purpose. However, this does not mean that he has to use the vacation time to recover physically. Extremely strenuous activities such as mountain climbing in the Himalayan mountains are also permitted during the holiday. If the employee helps in the family business free of charge (e.g. also at the husband's Christmas market, in a part-time farm or a non-profit organization), this does not contradict the purpose of the holiday. Only those who use the vacation time paid for by the employer to earn additional money through additional employment are in breach of the contract.

See also

literature

  • Thomas Dieterich u. a. (Ed.): Erfurt Commentary on Labor Law , 11th edition, Munich 2010, Publisher: CH Beck, ISBN 978-3-406-60876-6 .
  • Heilmann: Vacation right. Basic commentary on the BUrlG and other holiday law provisions , 3rd edition, 2009, BUND-Verlag, ISBN 978-3-7663-3950-8 .
  • Martin Henssler, Heinz Josef Willemsen, Heinz-Jürgen Kalb: Labor law commentary , 2nd edition, Otto Schmidt publishing house, Cologne 2006, ISBN 3-504-42658-6 .
  • Frank Hohmeister, Susanne Goretzki, Angelika Oppermann: Federal Holiday Act. Hand comment . 2nd Edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2008, ISBN 978-3-8329-2580-2 .
  • Dirk Neumann, Martin Fenski: Federal Holiday Act . Comment. 10th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2011, ISBN 978-3-406-60625-0 .
  • Stephan Pötters, Tom Stiebert, pitfalls in vacation law - still no legal certainty in practice? In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW), 2012, Issue 15, pp. 1034-1039.
  • Daniel-René Weigert, Patrick Zeising, The calculation of vacation entitlements in the event of changes in working hours In: Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht (NZA), 2016, issue 14, pp. 862–868.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Judgment of the Federal Labor Court, 6 AZR 442/83. jurion.de, March 8, 1984, accessed March 6, 2016 .
  2. ↑ Alexander Willemsen: expiry date unknown. November 14, 2018, accessed July 8, 2020 .
  3. ↑ BAG, January 17, 2006 - 9 AZR 61/05 -, in: NZA-RR 2006, 3821 (3822)
  4. ↑ BAG, June 20, 2000 - 9 AZR 309/99 -, in: NZA 2001, 622 (623).
  5. ↑ BAG, October 30, 2001 - 9 AZR 314/00 -, in: NZA 2002, 815 Os.
  6. ↑ BAG, 5 September 2002 - 9 AZR 244/01 -, in: NZA 2003, 726 (729).
  7. ↑ ECJ, decision of June 13, 2013 - C-415/12 on § 4 of the framework agreement on part-time work concluded on June 6, 1997 in the annex of Council Directive 97/81 / EC of December 15, 1997 to that of UNICE, CEEP and ETUC concluded framework agreement on part-time work (OJ 1998, L 14, p. 9)
  8. ↑ BAG, judgment of February 10, 2015 - 9 AZR 53/14 on Section 26 Paragraph 1 Clause 4 TVöD 2010
  9. ↑ New: No vacation reduction when switching part-time dpa / press release of the Federal Labor Court / Haufe-Online-Redaktion, February 11, 2015
  10. ↑ Daniel-René Weigert, Patrick Zeising, The calculation of vacation entitlements in the event of changes in working hours In: Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht (NZA), 2016, Issue 14, pp. 862–868.
  11. ↑ Leinemann / Linck, BUrlG, § 5 Rn. 21st
  12. ↑ BAG, June 21, 2005 - 9 AZR 200/04 -, in: NZA 2006, 232 Os. = NJOZ 2006, 681 (682).
  13. ↑ BAG, March 14, 2006 - 9 AZR 11/05 -, in: NJOZ 2006, 3100 (3101).
  14. ^ Corts, NZA 1998, 357 (358).
  15. ↑ a b BAG, March 14, 2006 - 9 AZR 11/05 -, in: NJOZ 2006, 3100 (3102).
  16. ↑ BAG, March 14, 2006 - 9 AZR 11/05 -, in: NJOZ 2006, 3100 (3103).
  17. ↑ BAG, March 14, 2006 - 9 AZR 11/05 -, in: NJOZ 2006, 3100.
  18. ↑ BAG, January 23, 2001 - 9 AZR 26/00 -, in: NZA 2001, 597.
  19. ↑ ArbG Berlin, January 28, 2004 - 48 Ca 26309/03 -, unpublished. (juris).
  20. ↑ BAG, June 21, 2005 - 9 AZR 295/04 -, in: NJOZ 2006, 1683 (1685).
  21. ^ LAG Düsseldorf, October 25, 2004 - 10 Sa 1306/04 -, in: LAGE § 7 BUrlG No. 41.
  22. ↑ LAG Hamm, May 26, 2004 - 18 Sa 964/04 -, unpublished. (juris).
  23. ↑ ErfK / Dörner, 6th edition [2006], BUrlG § 1 Rn. 31.
  24. ↑ See ErfK / Dörner, 8th edition (2008), § 7 marginal no. 23 mwN
  25. ↑ a b ECJ, January 20, 2009 - C-350/06 and C-520/06 -.
  26. ↑ See BAG, March 24, 2009 - 9 AZR 983/07 -.
  27. ↑ BAG, July 11, 2006 - 9 AZR 535/05 -, in: NJOZ 2006, 3110 (3111) [Tz. 17].
  28. ↑ See the judgment of the LAG Cologne of September 21, 2009, Az. 2 Sa 674/09.