MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379622547 · doi:10.1353/iur.2016.a838432

Report: German Federal Labour Court orders compensation for illegal strike

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

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Union Rights · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Governance and Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDamagesObligationPrincipal (computer security)LawGermanAction (physics)Political scienceCompensation (psychology)TortCollective actionLaw and economicsBusinessEconomicsHistoryLiabilityPoliticsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from 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...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0750.034

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Union RightsSame topicCorporate Governance and LawFrench-language works237,207