is currently a decision of the High Administrative Court of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia 6th Senate from 19.02.2009 - 6 A 356/06 on bullying at official:
The Higher Administrative Court has in this decision first a legal fact in its request, which also corresponds to the labor court bullying law and general procedural rules: the mere assertion systematic hostility, harassment and discriminatory practices of supervisors for the presentation of such a breach of fiduciary duty is not enough. The practices may be described not only sweeping and judgmental. Rather, they must be represented as concrete and substantiated that they are open to review. This is the one fact to prove that the core can be covered with concrete counter-speech. The court explicitly refers to the employment law concept of bullying, as the country's labor courts - from, among other things (LAG) Rheinland-Pfalz, judgment 11 January 2008 - 9 Sat 489/07 -; LAG Köln, Judgement of 21 April 2006 - 12 (7) Sat 64/06; LAG Schleswig-Holstein, Judgement of 28 March 2006 - 5 Sa 595/05 -, NZA-RR 2006, 402 - have developed.
meet these requirements the applicant's argument that such decision. Very typical presentation then followed that of the court: The allegations against the headmaster of Klägein and other parties are solely judgmental and sweeping. Whose conduct she described in the reply to the principal opinion of 7 September 2003 throughout as "power games with screaming, yelling, Threats and mouth Forbid "," constant harassment "," degrading "and, if it comes to assessing their performance was as" slander "and" falsehoods. "This talk was not for lack of fact the core of a concrete counter-speech debatable and not a review available. The also applied to the charge of defamation and spreading lies. The applicant does not objectively verifiable factual claims of the persons named in question, but value judgments. If you have specific conditions such as a phone call from the school principal on February 6, 2002, or a conversation with him a Sunday T. described, were not substantive statements or conduct specifically described Subject of the allegation, but the only commonly known as "outrageous", "roaring" and "intimidating" appearance of the designated head teacher.
problems of attribution
Whether the principal assessment of 5 August 2003 as such has caused the illness of the applicant can be left open. Such a result would not be attributable to the defendant country in such a way that would limit the discretion in deciding on the dismissal from the internship. It can be assumed in favor of the applicant that the assessment was illegal. For the allocation is not sufficient that an unlawful action by officials of the employer conditio sine qua non for the invalidity of the official concerned is not to be thought away, without the invalidity would remove. Rather, it must be an adequate result of the unlawful act. This is only the case if the employer had to reckon with such a causal history. Objectively exceptional, according to the regular course of things are out of consideration to let him end action sequences not responsible, because this would lead to a limitless extension of its responsibility.
invalidity
The incapacity of the applicant is not an appropriate consequence of the principal opinion of 5 August 2003. Although there may be predictable be that a poor assessment could result from the data subject to psychological stress, but it must not generally expected to further attacks. Rather, it must be assumed that the official target for the civil service - is designed - including health. Advance so that clogging is a psychological constitution of the officers that enables him to contact a professional framework in constant criticism even constructive way if it is unjustified. Accordingly, after the regular course of things to be disregarded is that the official long term sick due to the aforementioned frame-maintaining assessment and why his service is no longer - Not even at another training institution - could begin. Rather, may be expected from the officers that he objects to such an assessment in the appropriate legal procedures.
Who will draw the employer because of bullying to account, the state must prove breach of duty and. See the reasoning of the Administrative Court of Würzburg (27/06/2006 - W 1 C 04/1027):
Such a claim implies the violation of civil service duty of care or breach of other Civil service obligations on the employer. Such a claim is settled higher court jurisdiction and the prevailing opinion in the literature well next to a public liability claim within the meaning of Article 34 p. 1 Constitution in connection with § 839 BGB is conceivable and possible and can be tracked separately. According to the jurisprudence of the Federal Court meant by "bullying" of abuse of position of a superior to a subordinate systematic and continued to insult, harass and discriminate against them. In the labor court held that it is in "bullying" to continuing and building on each other and each other cross, the hostility, harassment or discrimination serving behaviors that are conducive to their nature and end usually a parent, by law unmet goals and in a whole the general right to honor or violate the health of the person concerned. Whether a systematic hostility, bullying or discriminating is available, it depends on individual cases. Here, a distinction is necessary to the operation in a generally normal or permitted by law and therefore to be accepted behavior. Not every argument or disagreement between superiors and subordinates to meet that court Würzburg the concept of "bullying". Short-term conflicts with supervisors or coworkers regularly lack the systematic approach. So it is always a set of actions that a liability due to all events connected system and its continuing relationship reasons. Always a continuing relationship between their events is necessary. The court stated
then, in our view very problematic extension of the terminology: the behavior is directed against a person, then systematic if it can be seen from a chain of incidents, a system, says the court.
But that is in our estimation, a request that has a substantive component for which we can see no legal basis. For such would be permanent and repeated bullying measures would not be seen that there is a system behind the chicane to move about one official to termination of employment.
The court will still further: The literature assumes that the causes and motives of bullying are complex, usually are several reasons for the same time significantly. Purpose of bullying is a regular social exclusion of the victim because of a conflict and, finally, the displacement from the work area. The activities usually is not the real issues in dispute, but the person of the opponent.
This is observed very justly, for regularly held a misnomer, by the commissions also bullying is laminated further, ma words, there is virtually never a bully, the bullying acknowledging his intent.
A fair and open solution appears to the actors is always risky. The court distinguished between superiors, colleagues and staff bullying. One or more offenders acting sometimes planned to consolidate its own sphere of influence. Similarly, multiple offenders, where appropriate, bullying and from different hierarchical levels out along the same person from totally different motives, it agreed only goal.
0 comments:
Post a Comment