Germany / Federal Labour Court / AZR 149/19

Unknown private person, the liquidator of Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Federal Labour Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
21/01/2020
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:DE:BAG:2020:210120.U.1AZR149.19.0
  • Germany / Federal Labour Court / AZR 149/19
    Key facts of the case:
    The plaintiff worked as a flight attendant for a German airline. In 2017, insolvency proceedings had been opened in respect of the airline’s assets. The respondent was appointed as the airline’s liquidator and terminated as such in January 2018 all contracts of the company with those employees who had been working in cabin crew functions, including the plaintiff. The plaintiff lodged a claim for compensation as provided for by the collective labour agreement for cabin crew members. The clause of the collective labour agreement in question provides for claiming compensation in favour of dismissed employees in case that the company violates its obligation to try to conciliate interests with the employees’ representation prior to a change in operations. The plaintiff argued that the dismissal of the airline’s pilots that already happened in November 2017 had constituted such a change in operations for which reason conciliation proceedings with the cabin crew employees’ representation should have been held before her dismissal and not only, as it was the case, in November 2017. The local labour court as well as the next instance dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.
    Key legal question raised by the Court:
    The Federal Labour Court examined the content of the relevant clause of the collective labour agreement, in particular the meaning of the term “change in operations”, by interpreting its spirit and purpose and in due consideration of higher-ranking law, namely the Industrial Relations Act (Betriebsverfassungsgesetz) and the Collective Bargaining Act (Tarifvertragsgesetz). In this context the Court also considered the relevance of EU law, namely of Directive 2002/14/EC and Article 27 of the Charter.
    Outcome of the case:

    The Federal Labour Court rejected the plaintiff’s appeal, and held that the plaintiff cannot claim for compensation on the basis of the relevant clause of the collective labour agreement for cabin crew members. By interpreting this clause, the Federal Labour Court asserted that the company did not have the obligation to try to conciliate interests with the cabin crew employees’ representation prior to the dismissals of the pilots since the clause does not stipulate such an obligation for the planning of a complete closure of the airline operations. The Court’s reading of the clause in question resulted from a restrictive interpretation of the term of “change in operation”, reducing the meaning of the clause to its legally permitted core. Furthermore, the Court held that Union law does not conflict with such a restrictive interpretation since a possible incompatibility. Although the Court denied the necessity to decide on the compatibility of its restrictive interpretation of the clause with EU law, it is reasoned that the requirements laid down in Article 4 (2) c read in conjunction with (4) e and Article 5 of the Directive 2002/14/EC or Article 27 of the Charta would not allow for another interpretation. Referring to jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutioal Court (1 BvR 2230/15) and the CJEU (Association de mediation sociale), the Court argued that the general obligation of interpretation of national law in line with Union law could not serve as a basis for an interpretation contra legem of the national law. The obligation to implement EU law by interpretation is limited by what is methodologically allowed by domestic legal tradition. In the present case such a methodological limit would be exceeded if the clause of the collective labour agreement would be given a normative weight that goes beyond the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Act.

     
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    “The Union law does not contradict the interpretation in the present case. No decision is required on whether the restricted understanding of Sections 80, 81 (1) 1 and (2) 2 of the Collective Labour Agreement on Employees’s Representation (Tarifvertrag Personalvertretung) is in line with the requirements of Article 4 (2) c in connection with Article (4) e and Article 5 of the Directive 2002/14/EC as well as Article 27of the Fundamental Rights Charter of the European Union - which in any case is only effective through specifying the regulations by Union law or national law (compare CJEU, judgement of 15 January 2014 - C - 176/12 - [Association de médiation sociale] para. 45). Even if this were not the case, it would not contradict the interpretation of clauses of collective labour agreements in compliance with the law that aims to reduce the clauses to their legally permitted core. A possible incompatibility with legal requirements imposed by Union law could not lead to an unrestricted normative validity of the Sections 80, 81 (1) 1 and (2) 2 of the Collective Labour Agreement on Employees’s Representation which stipulate a debtor’s obligation to try to conciliate interests with the cabin crew employees’ representation about the (complete) closure of the airline operations (in the sense of an organizational unit of the company).“

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    „Das Unionsrecht steht der vorliegenden Auslegung nicht entgegen. Es bedarf keiner Entscheidung, ob das eingeschränkte Verständnis von §§ 80, 81 Abs. 1 Satz 1 und Abs. 2 Satz 2 TVPV mit den Anforderungen des Art. 4 Abs. 2 Buchst. c iVm. Abs. 4 Buchst. e und Art. 5 der Richtlinie 2002/14/EG sowie des - ohnehin erst zur Entfaltung seiner vollen Wirksamkeit durch Bestimmungen des Unionsrechts oder des nationalen Rechts zu konkretisierenden (vgl. EuGH 15. Januar 2014 - C - 176/12 - [Association de médiation sociale] Rn. 45) - Art. 27 GRC in Einklang steht. Selbst wenn dies nicht der Fall wäre, stünde dies der zum Zwecke der Geltungserhaltung gebotenen gesetzeskonformen Auslegung der Tarifnormen nicht entgegen. Eine etwaige Unvereinbarkeit mit den unionsrechtlichen Vorgaben könnte nicht dazu führen, dass die in §§ 80, 81 Abs. 1 Satz 1 und Abs. 2 Satz 2 TVPV vorgesehene Verpflichtung der Schuldnerin, mit der Personalvertretung Kabine einen Interessenausgleich über die (gesamte) Stilllegung des Flugbetriebs (im Sinne einer betrieblichen Organisationseinheit) zu versuchen, uneingeschränkt normativ wirken könnte.“