MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4379622547 · doi:10.1353/iur.2016.a838432

Report: German Federal Labour Court orders compensation for illegal strike

2016· article· en· W4379622547 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nadine Absenger

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Union Rights · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueCorporate Governance and Law
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDamagesObligationPrincipal (computer security)LawGermanAction (physics)Political scienceCompensation (psychology)TortCollective actionLaw and economicsBusinessEconomicsHistoryLiabilityPoliticsComputer security

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In its ruling of 26 July 2016, the German Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht, BAG) held1 that the Air Traffic Controllers Union (Gewerkschaft der Flugsicherung, GdF) has to pay FRAPORT AG high compensation (possibly euro 5 million) for the strike action it organised at Frankfurt Airport in February 2012. The exact amount of damages will now be determined by the Regional Labour Court of the State of Hesse (Landesarbeitsgericht Hessen, LAG). Contrary to the previous instances ruling in the principal proceedings, the BAG found the strike action to be illegal, as the obligation of the collective agreement to keep the industrial peace still applied to some of the union demands. The BAG did however dismiss the damage claims brought against the GdF in the same proceedings by third-party aviation companies for flights cancelled as a result of the collective action. In the previous instances, the Frankfurt/Main Labour Court (Arbeitsgericht Frankfurt am Main, ArbG) and the LAG had ruled that FRAPORT did not have any justified damage claims. Both previous instances were convinced that GdF would have undertaken the strike action at the same place, the same time, and with the same extent even without the ancillary demands violating its obligation to keep the industrial peace, so that the damage would also have occurred with a lawful alternative action by the GdF. Because of this lawful alternative action, GdF would therefore not be liable for the damages claimed by FRAPORT. In the principal proceedings, the previous instances had also dismissed the action insofar as it concerned the damage claims of thirdparty aviation companies, because – as the BAG afterwards confirmed in its final ruling – third parties may not claim damages from the trade union undertaking the strike, even if the strike was unlawful, as it did not constitute a direct intervention in their business activities. The BAG ruling of 26 July 2016, which has only been released as a press statement, constitutes another restriction of the unions’ right to collective action, insofar as it concerns the damage claims awarded to FRAPORT. According to the BAG press statement and contrary to the previous instances, the BAG did not uphold the principle of lawful alternative action, as it did not follow the GdF view that the same damages would have occurred in a strike action without any demands violating the obligation to keep the industrial peace2. The BAG decision is negative for the trade unions and illustrates the risk unions are exposed to in all their strikes. To enforce their bargaining claims and to exercise their right to free collective bargaining enshrined in Article 9 Section 3 of the German Constitution (Grundgesetz), trade unions depend on strike action. Even now, the German unions’ right to strike is subject to multiple restrictions starting with the rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the cases of Viking/Laval3, on the employers’ option to be members of an employers’ association without being committed to a collective agreement (OT Membership)4, or the legitimacy of so-called ‘flash’ resignations/changes of membership to an OT membership5, or the requirement that a legitimate strike must have an objective which is suitable for regulation by collective agreement. Furthermore, the coverage of collective agreements has registered a downward trend for years; just short of one third of all companies in Germany are bound by collective agreements (West Germany: 31 percent; East Germany: 21 percent); these same companies employ close to 60 percent of all employees (East Germany: 49 percent)6. Further restrictions of the right to strike are therefore highly problematic. The BAG must be commended for confirming an earlier ruling of 2015 saying that third parties not involved in a strike action cannot claim damages from the striking trade union, as there is no relation of their intervention to the business of said third party. This means for the present case that there was no direct intervention in the business activities of the aviation companies suffering cancelled flights7. Background to the strike The BAG decision of July 2016 was based on the following events: the claimant company FRAPORT AG and GdF had concluded a bargaining agreement for the employees working in apron control and central air traffic...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,075
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,252

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,011
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0080,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0090,002
Science ouverte0,0020,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0750,034

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,014
Tête enseignante GPT0,249
Écart entre enseignants0,235 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInternational Union RightsMême sujetCorporate Governance and LawTravaux en français237 207