We know enough of the attitude of officials of the rights of the people or citizens, as for example in the Basic Law in Articles 1 and 2 invariably are anchored. But what cares officials or judges who were themselves immunized with the status of permanent status (1).
So now the judges by the National Labour Court, Christoph Tillmanns decided without an opinion to speak. We have another of these comparisons, which should however be in the interests of the geriatric nurse, the right to claim from the Basic Law and Articles 1 and 2, however, is a mockery. (2)
The comparison may in some weeks under the case number (case no 9 Sat 75/09 be consulted) if the nursing home did not even anfechtet. (4) The AMR will publish it as soon as he should be accessible, which is handled well in comparisons of the courts other than an official ruling.
Once the judge has made it clear the termination was illegal. Once the employer would have to recognize that the long Seniority and the high age no summary dismissal warrants, which is welcome.
Task “Theft from food remnants,” the judge following a stance according to Reuters and doubts expressed, “if would have because of the low value of the ravioli to be issued a summary dismissal. A measurable damage whether the employer did not occur because the dumplings should be disposed of as waste. A reprimand would have the Court considers sufficient to the undisputed entrainment of the few Euro to complain expensive food remains. “(4)
If the comparison does not bear fruit, but the Employment not terminated. so as to at least the legal position for a nurse.
Apparently, then grabbed the comparison, the woman receives back pay until the end of her fictitious employment has not deducted the end of 2009 and a severance payment, which together make 42 000 Euro, the tax is about it.
But what probably very unfavorable to the defendant and thus should be given to doubt her lawyer, “was the 58-year-old (geriatric) lose their early retirement age.” (4)
A judge’s decision can only disappoint and makes it clear if you have power, coal, and you bully, then you win, ultimately forever. The aim of the bullies was to terminate the applicant and this was also implemented a court. So, in legal terms for the employer a success, a success just a roundabout way.
And the 42 000 is not in itself enriches the tax was just the price for the termination.
From the perspective of women, the assumption was understandable, because when you have to sacrifice the Trauma overcome such attacks, or to go mentally and physically destroyed.
From the perspective of justice, a judge of the typical sayings, press the right judgments, like little boys before going to bed. And it remained unclear what the woman does now? If it again, or she goes into early retirement?
Such social consequences overwhelm our judges almost universally. Actually, the woman would have their wages up to the notional retirement age of 65 plus and must be given only at that point would have ended the employment relationship. In England we really talked. (3)
We must therefore continue to Precedent Wait Easter 2010 brings for bullying victims do not change, a pity. And why a precedent is now important Soch shows the case of bullying daml 36-year-old secretary “Helen Green“From London, who worked at Deutsche Bank, and had to endure harassment in the workplace until she was just in court. They then received 1.2 million euros in 2006 because of bullying attacks in damages. (5)