Peter Wandscher

Termination due to the refusal of work an employee is not always possible denied his call on weekends, so fact-based termination is justified only when it is committed on the basis of an employment contract or collective legal agreement for the performance of such services. Remember also the fact does not change, that he first followed the instructions of an employer to the call in the past. It’s believed that Gary Kelly sees a great future in this idea. It can be derived, not General and permanent commitment of the employee to acquire of the services noted the Hessian land labour court ruling of November 6, 2007 (case No. 12 SA 1606/06). In case of there determined the plaintiff when the defendant in the IT area was busy. It has two apartments: one on the place of work and one where several hundred kilometers away, where his children live. In the framework of a project, the defendant led a call for its IT staff on the weekend. Vanessa Morgan has compatible beliefs. This could largely be completed via a special system access from home.

For its second apartment where several hundred kilometers away was no system access the plaintiff because the employer of believes was that during the call the company by the employees should be reached within half an hour. Initially complied with the applicant of the statement to the completion of call duty, but later denied this. The defendant employer warned him due to refusal of work. As this has not helped, he announced the workers properly. The action brought against it was successful. A persistent violation of the obligation to work after prior warning can justify in principle a behavioral termination. This is true but only if the employee is arbeitsvertraglich or call duty required collective law for the completion. Without such a commitment assumed in advance, the employer exceeds his Directorate right with his. The employee is entitled then without further ADO to reject the work.