No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Federal Labor Court strengthens religious freedom at the workplace
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
Extract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
The decision of the Bundesarbeitsgericht [Federal Labor Court, Abbr. BAG] of October 10, 2002 raises essentially the increasingly important question of the exercise of religious freedom at the workplace. The case concerned the ordinary dismissal of a Moslem saleswoman employed in a big department store claiming to wear during the working time, according to the rules of her religious belief, as headgear a shawl covering the hair. The court has declared that the dismissal is violating section 1 par. 2 Kündigungsschutzgesetz [Act on the Protection against Unfair Dismissal, Abbr. KSchG] and has mainly stated that the wearing of a headgear at the workplace as an expression of the religious belief does not justify as such the ordinary dismissal of an employee.
- Type
- Private Law
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2003 by German Law Journal GbR
References
1 2 AZR 472/01. The text of the decision is available by internet: http://www.bundesarbeitsgericht.de/ Google Scholar
2 On the horizontal effect of the fundamental rights in the employment contract and of the guarantee of religious freedom in particular cf. Richardi, in: Münchener Handbuch zum Arbeitsrecht, 2nd edition, München 2000, volume 1, § 10, in particular notes 47-49.Google Scholar
3 5 Sa 1782/01, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (2002) [Abbr. NJW], p. 1970.Google Scholar
4 2 C 21/01, NJW (2002), p. 3344; see also the decision of the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart [Administrative Court of Stuttgart], 15 K 532/99, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht (2000) [Abbr. NVwZ], p. 959 and the decision of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Mannheim [State Administrative Court of Mannheim], 4 S 1439/00, NJW 2001, p. 2899. The case is now pending at the Bundesverfassungsgericht [Federal Constitutional Court, Abbr. BVerfG] (2 BvR 1436/02). A similar case coming up from Switzerland lead to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights of February 15, 2001, No. 42393/98, NJW 2001, p. 2871 (the decision is also available via internet: www.coe.int/portalT.asp). The court holds that the State forbidding his teachers to wear a Moslem headgear during the classes does not violate article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms because such a limitation of the religious freedom of a teacher would be necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the religious freedom of others (article 9 par. 2 of the Convention).Google Scholar
5 For a more in depth analysis of the Act on the Protection against Unfair Dismissal cf. Weiss/Schmidt, The Federal Republic of Germany, p. 106 in: Blancpain (ed.), International Encyclopedia for Labour Law and Industrial Relations, The Hague London Boston, Volume 6 (March 2000).Google Scholar
6 3 Sa 1448/00, NJW 2001, p. 3650.Google Scholar
7 Cf. BVerfG, decision of November 22, 1951, BVerfGE 7, p. 198 (204) – “Lüth”.Google Scholar
8 Cf. Thüsing, Vom Kopftuch als Angriff auf die Vertragsfreiheit, NJW 2003, p. 405 (406).Google Scholar
9 Cf. LAG Berlin, decision of January 14, 1998, 8 Sa 118/97, NJW 1998, p. 1429; Pfeiffer, in: Becker/Etzel, et al., Gemeinschaftskommentar zum KSchG und zu sonstigen kündigungsschutzrechtlichen Vorschriften, 6th edition, Neuwied/Kriftel 2002 (Abbr.: KR-author), § 611a BGB, note 54.Google Scholar
10 Cf. KR-Fischermeier, § 626 BGB, note 208 with references.Google Scholar
11 Cf. KR-Friedrich, § 13 KSchG, note 183; BAG, decision of September 28, 1972, 2 AZR 469/71, Entscheidungssammlung zum Arbeitsrecht [Abbr. EzA] Nr. 25 zu § 1 KSchG.Google Scholar
12 For further details see Osterloh, , in: Sachs, (ed.): Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, 3rd edition, München 2003, Art. 3, note 255 with further references.Google Scholar
13 Cf. BVerfG, decision of November 27, 1997, 1 BvL 12/91, BVerfGE 97, p. 35 (43); decision of January 30, 2002, 1 BvL 23/96, BVerfGE 104, p. 373 (393). The text of these decisions also can be found on the homepage of the BVerfG: www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de Google Scholar
14 Cf. Osterloh, , op. cit., Art. 3, note 254.Google Scholar
15 Cf. KR-Fischermeier, § 626 BGB, note 206 with further references.Google Scholar
16 Official Journal of the EC, L 303/16 of December 2, 2000.Google Scholar
17 If there is a works council in the establishment, the employer has to respect the works councils’ codetermination right with regard to the elaboration of dress regulations (section 87 par. 1 No. 1 BetrVG): cf. BAG, decision of August 8, 1989 – 1 ABR 65/88 and of December 1, 1993 – 1 AZR 260/92, Arbeitsrechtliche Praxis [AP] No. 15, 20 zu § 87 BetrVG 1972 Ordnung des Betriebes.Google Scholar
18 The text of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EC can be found on the following internet-address: www.ue.eu.int/df/docs/en/ChartEN.pdf Google Scholar
You have
Access