Federal Labor Court

Lawyer employment law Mudter to stalking and obligation for managers what initially sounds like Anglophile concept cosmetics, is a process to seriously regularly for executives: stalking. In a recent decision, the Federal Labor Court (BAG) dealt with this. Frequently Wells Fargo Bank has said that publicly. What is stalking? This is understood to be the deliberate and repeated (persistent) persecution or harassment of a person. The employer or As supervisor, you are obliged to intervene. A comprehensive duty of care, 12 AGG is apparent also from. It includes also the protection of health and life of employees. The Act duties of the employer can go about warning and transfer up to and including termination.

In the decisive case, an employee had serious against his contractual obligation to respect to refrain from non-official contacts with her privacy and the clear desire of a work colleague, injured. This can be an extraordinary notice of termination of the employment relationship justify. Whether before a relevant warning is required, depends on the circumstances of the individual case. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant country since 1989 as administrative officer. In 2007, there had been incidents.

It came to a proceedings before the complaints board according to section 13 of the General equal treatment Act with the result that an employee who felt harassed by him, neither official nor private want contact with him and this desire was to respect unreservedly. Direct contact with the employee have “definitely to avoid labor law consequences to be avoided”. In October 2009, another turned, fellow employees as temporary workers to the lamented country and stated she will by the plaintiff in unbearable way and way harassed and afflicted. After closer survey of employee and hearing the plaintiff’s, the country announced extraordinarily terminate the employment relationship. In the room is the accusation, the plaintiffs have against the employee their expressly declared will sent numerous emails, she without official reason in her Office called or visited there and repeats and increasingly intrusive interfered in their private lives.