Legal Protection against Breaches of Duty on the Part of the German Works Council — A Fata Morgana?

106 Pages·2000·5.972 MB·English

by  Prof. Dr. iur. Detlev W. Belling (auth.)

Potsdamer Rechtswissenschaftliche Reihe
Band 8
Herausgegeben von
Professor Dr. jur. Dieter C. Umbach (geschäftsführender Herausgeber)
Professor Dr. jur. Werner Merle
Professor Dr. jur. Wolfgang Mitsch
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg GmbH
Detlev W. Belling
Legal Protection against
Breaches of Duty on the
Part of the German Works
Council - A Fata Morgana?
t
Springer
Prof. Dr. iur. Detlev W. Belling
Universität Potsdam
Juristische Fakultät
August-Bebel-Strasse 89
D-14482 Potsdam
E-mail: [email protected]
ISBN 978-3-642-63104-7
Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme
Belling. Detlev W.: Legal protection against breaches of duty on the part of the german
works council - a fata morgana1 / Detlev W. Belling. - Berlin; Heidelberg; New York; Bar
celona; Hongkong; London; Mailand; Paris; Singapur; Tokio: Springer. 2000
ISBN 978-3-642-63104-7 ISBN 978-3-642-56993-7 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-56993-7
Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die dadurch begründeten Rechte. insbesonde
re die der übersetzung. des Nachdrucks. des Vortrags. der Entnahme von Abbildungen
und Tabellen. der Funksendung. der Mikroverfilmung oder der Vervielfältigung auf ande
ren Wegen und der Speicherung in Datenverarbeitungsanlagen. bleiben. auch bei nur aus
zugsweiser Verwertung. vorbehalten. Eine Vervieltaltigung dieses Werkes oder von Teilen
dieses Werkes ist auch im Einzelfall nur in den Grenzen der gesetzlichen Bestimmungen
des Urheberrechtsgesetzes der Bundesrepublik Deutschland vom 9. September 1965 in
der jeweils geltenden Fassung zulässig. Sie ist grundsätzlich vergütungspflichtig. Zuwider
handlungen unterliegen den Strafbestimmungen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes.
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000
Originally published by Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York in 2000
Die Wiedergabe von Gebrauchsnamen. Handelsnamen. Warenbezeichnungen usw. in die
sem Werk berechtigt auch ohne besondere Kennzeichnung nicht zu der Annahme. daß
solche Namen im Sinne der Warenzeichen- und Markenschutz-Gesetzgebung als frei zu
betrachten wären und daher von jedermann benutzt werden dürften.
Umschlaggestaltung: Design & Production GmbH, Heidelberg
Satz: K+ V Fotosatz GmbH, Beerfelden
SPIN 10753231 64/2202-5 4 3 2 1 0 - Gedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier
DEDICATED TO
MY HIGHLY ESTEEMED ACADEMIC MENTOR
PROFESSORDR. IUR. DR. MULT. H.C. (F)(LET)
WILFRIED SCHLÜTER
ON THE OCCASION OF HIS 65TH BIRTHDAY
Preface
In the working world, the weal and woe of the largely defenseless individual is
vested in the hands of the collective powers. The trust placed in these powers
stands in stark contrast to the widespread distrust of the democratic constitutional
state. While legal protection vis-a-vis the state has been extended in a very so
phisticated and flexible manner, often to an extreme degree, the question of how
the employee and the employer can be protected against breaches of duty on the
part of the works council (Betriebsrat) under the German industrial govemance
laws has yet to be resolved. This is a highly relevant issue of great social and po
litical explosiveness. The question is how much latitude the collective powers
should have to act according to their own discretion without being compelled to
answer not only to the employees, but also to the employers as weIL In light ofthe
legal protection that has been developed for the past hundred years and more, and
particularly the continued expansion of the individual's legal protection vis-a-vis
the state powers since the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) entered into force, the control
held by the intennediary powers, and thus also the works council, appears almost
anachronistic. In the past ten years this deficiency in the legal protection provided
under the industrial govemance laws has increasingly forced its way into the line
ofvision ofthe Gennan labor law scholars. However, the discussion ofthe use of
legal mechanisms to limit the dominance of the industrial partners is just begin
ning. In the USA, on the other hand, the similar problem of breaches of duty on
the part of the trade unions has long been the subject of case law and legal com
mentaries.
This work represents a continuation of the thoughts the author presented in his
Habilitationsschrift, which were originally suggested by Professor Dr. iur. Dr.
mult. h.c. (F)(Let) Wilfried Schlüter.
Table of Contents
I. General Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
H. Collective Organizations in German and American Labor Law ........................... .4
I. The German Model.. ................................................................................................ .4
a) The Trade Unions and the Employers' Assoeiations ........................................... .4
b) The Works Council .............................................................................................. 6
2. The Model in American Labor Law .......................................................................... 7
a) The Majority Trade Union and the Bargaining Uni!............ . ......... 7
b) The Duty ofFair Representation........ . ...................................................... 9
IH. Introduction to the Issue ........................................................................................... 12
IV. Case Law and the Literature .................................................................................... 15
I. Case Law ................................................................................................................ 15
2. Literature ............................................................................................................... 18
a) General Non-Reeognition or Restrietion ofthe Liability ofWorks Council
Members ............................................................................................................ 18
b) Liability under Tor! Law ......... . ............................................................... 21
aal Liability in Relation to the Employer ......................................................... 21
bb) Liability in Relation to the Employees ........................................................ 23
e) Liability from the Works Council's Position as Goveming Body in Rela-
tion to the Owner or the Employees ................................................................... 25
d) Liability on the Basis of a Legal Obligation Under Contraetual or Quasi-
Contraetual Principles ........................................................................................ 25
aal The Concept ofv Hoyningen-Huene and Weber ......................................... 25
bb) Hanau's Concept. ....................................................................................... 27
ce) /Veumann-Duesberg's Concept ................................................................... 27
dd) Nolting's Concept ....................................................................................... 28
ee) Richardi's Concept ..................................................................................... 28
V. Restraint in Practice ............. . .......................................................................... 30
VI. The Relationship Between the Works Council and the Employees ....................... 32
I. The Neeessity of a System of Legal Protection against Breaehes of Duty by
the Works Council .................................................................................................. 32
a) The Shifting ofthe Dependence Relationship .................................................... 32
b) The Alienation ofthe Works Couneil from the Workforce ................................ 33
X Table ofContents
c) Accumulation ofPower in the Hands ofthe Works Council ............................. 34
d) Compulsory Representation ofthe Employee and Freedom to Act .................. 35
e) Constitutional Considerations Involved in the Coupling of Power and
Responsibility .................................................................................................... 36
t) Individual Legal Safeguards as a Necessary Guarantee ofFreedom .................. 37
g) The Avoidance of a Deficiency in Legal Safeguards Through Social Self-
Administration .................................................................................................. 38
2. The Foundations ofLegal Safeguards ................................................................... .40
a) The Typology of TOr! Liability and Liability in Special Legal Relation-
ships ................................................................................................................... 40
b) The System of Liability in the Relationship Between the Works Council
and the Employee ............................................................................................. .41
cl The Circ\e ofthe Employees Involved in the System ofLiability ..................... 54
3. The Basis ofClaims ................................................................................................ 54
a) The Fiduciary Character ofthe Legal Relationship ........................................... 54
b) The Analogous Application ofLiability Provisions for Private Offices ........... 55
aal Identitying a Regulatory Gap ...................................................................... 56
bb) The Comparability ofthe Office ofWorks Council and Private Offices ..... 56
4. The Official Duties ofthe Works Council Toward the Employees ......................... 59
5. The Respondent to a Claim: the Works Council or the Works Council Mem-
bers0 ....................................................................................................................... 63
6. The Causality of a Breach ofDuty .......................................................................... 64
7. Burden ofProof .................................................................................................... 65
8. Fault ........................................................................................................................ 66
9. The Legal Consequences ofBreaches ofOfficial Duties ........................................ 68
VII. The Relationship Between the Works Council and the Employer ........................ 73
I. The Differences Between the Works Council's Legal Relationships to the
Employer and to the Employee ............................................................................... 73
2. The Nature of the Legal Relationship Between the Works Council and the
Employer ................................................................................................................ 74
3. The Legal Duties ofthe Works Council. ................................................................. 76
4. Sanctions Due to a Breach ofDuty by the Works Council ..................................... 79
a) Forfeiture ofPowers and Rights ofthe Works Council ..................................... 79
b) Claims for Performance and Injunctions ............................................................ 79
cl Damages Incurred Due to Breach of a Legal Dut) ............................................ 82
5. Temporary Relieffor the Employer ........................................................................ 83
Bibliography ....................................... . ................. 85
I. General Introduction
l
The law goveming industrial relations, which has been applicable in the Fed
eral Republic of Germany for the past forty years and goes back to the Works
Council Law (Betriebsrätegesetz - BRG) of 1920, grants employees far-reaching
rights of codetermination and participation. Its primary focus is the organization of
work on the shop floor, but it also concems itself with personnel and economic
matters. The purpose of codetermination in industrial govemance (Betriebsverfas
sung) is to enable the creation of a system on the principle of self-determination2.
Employees should no longer be subjected to the unrestricted right of the emp10yer
to issue directives or exercise a virtual dictatorship over them. The aim of em
ployee panicipation is to institute cooperative social controls so as to restrict the
employer's previous power of sole disposal over the welfare of his employees.
Codetermination rights thus fulfill the function of complementing the individual
autonomy, which can only function to a limited extent in an employment relation
ship'-
In the USA a certain mistrust prevails against "anyone and anything having to
do with power"·. The duty of fair representation is vigorously wielded to broaden
legal protection against the trade unions5. In Germany, however, the idea that the
works council should have legal responsibility toward the employees has thus far
met with but slight interest. It is similar with the question of legal protection for
the employer in the event that the works council is in breach of duty. Although
Oertmann6 wamed as early as 1925 against "subjecting individuals to the authori
tarian power of group organizations for better or worse", German jurisprudence
I This work comports to the standard method of citation set forth in Kirchner. Abkür
zungsverzeichnis der Rechtssprache (Directory of Legal Abreviation). 4th ed., Berlin,
New York 1993.
The author makes reference to his German language treatise Die Haftung des Betriebsrats
und seiner Mitglieder für Pflichtverletzungen. Tübingen 1990.
In translating various terms and statutory texts into English. frequent use was made of
The Encyclopaedia of Labour Law by Manfred Weiss, particularly the sections on "Ger
many (Fed, Rep,)" and "Legislation Fed, Rep. Germany", updated to 1994. Kluwer Law
and Taxation Publishers. Deventer. Boston.
Here. the legislature was concerned with individual self-determination, and not, as
v. Hoyningen-Huene contends in RdA 1992. 355, 356 and in the Festschrift 1995 173,
175, a "collective self-determination" in any form. This term is a contradictio in adiecto.
Hammer. 199831-41.
• Wiedemann, 1989 11.
Clark, 51 Tex, L Rev. 1119. 1178 (1973).
6 JW 1925. 2420. 2421.