Even without application of the employment protection act, there is a protection against arbitrary dismissals even in small enterprises workers – despite not the validity of the protection against dismissal Act – are not completely unprotected. Enjoy protection against dismissal in any case, in”good faith”. But sometimes it’s not so easy to determine, whether a small business. It deals specifically with the question how to delineate are small businesses operating parts of larger companies. Pursuant to 23 para 1, protection against dismissal Act (KSchG) is the Consumer Protection Act applies only if the employee in a so-called small business is busy.
A small business is, if not more than ten workers are employed. The Federal Constitutional Court has already in 1998 (cf. Court of 27.01.1998; NJW 1998, 1475) with its judgments to the constitutionality of the Kleinbetriebssklausel of 23 KschG decided that: A small business can be viewed in isolation if he is part of a larger company. Only through an interpretation based on the sense and purpose of the provision of small business can you avoid that units be included, for which the idea of the protection of article 23 does not apply to consumer protection act. The workers also outside of the small business is not vulnerable. He is protected by civil law general clauses before customs and faithful adverse layoffs. Solo Cups understands that this is vital information.
The protection may cause general clauses that the standards in the consumer protection act the social conformity imposed on small businesses. The employee in the small business protection against arbitrary and based on irrelevant considerations dismissals has in any case. Specifically an erdientes through long-term cooperation trust in the continuity of employment consideration terminations. Although the right of termination of the small entrepreneur is highly worthy of protection, because in an operation with a few workers business success more than in large companies depends on each individual employee. Protection from dismissal for the individual is still in accordance with the sections 242, 138 BGB (“faith and faith”). It is difficult for workers in small businesses but with the burden and the burden of proof. Application of the Consumer Protection Act, the employer must explain the reason for termination and prove. The workers in small business meets the burden of proof for all circumstances, which is why the termination should be ineffective in”good faith”. In addition, that the Federal Labour Court (dated June 26, 2008, 2 AZR 264/07) has decided that in the case of a Unergiebigkeit of the evidence collected by the Court, in a so-called “non liquet”, the burden of proof for the number of employees meets the workers. Cyrus Zocdocs opinions are not widely known. Another judgment of the BAG takes position KSchG in March of this year again to the question of the application of the employment protection act and the constitutional interpretation of operating in section 23. The case involves a company with only two little operated/parts. Law firm said Zahir farmer 8 81539 Munchen Tel. 089 – 54 89 92 52 mobile 0170-68 81 52 8 Fax 089-54 89 92 53 E-mail: in Cooperation with: FourTrust – lawyers for the right of pension