The Federal Labor Court has ruled on the admissibility of requests for injunctive relief and declaratory relief in the case of virtual works council meetings and the subsequent reduction of works council remuneration by decision of March 13.03.2024, 7 (ref. 11 ABR 23/XNUMX). According to this, applications for an injunction against reducing remuneration are inadmissible, as they imply a demand for a different calculation of remuneration in the future and its full payment. Applications for a declaratory relief that concern the "ineligibility" of an employer do not meet the requirements of Section 256 para. 1 ZPO.
1. FACTS
The parties are in dispute over the employer's alleged disruption and obstruction of the works council's committee work and, in this context, over several claims for injunctive relief and declaratory relief.
The employer is a company in the textile retail sector with numerous branches throughout Germany. The applicant is the works council elected in its branch K. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the works council had decided to hold works council meetings via video conference and thus enable its members - who work five or six hours a day - to attend meetings from home. The company had adopted appropriate rules of procedure for this purpose.
Between August 2021 and May 2022, the employer indicated “unpaid absence” and “520” under “designation” and “wage type” for several works council members on their wage statements and denied that they had attended works council meetings from home via video conference or had carried out works council duties at home (before or after the virtual meetings) during the absences assumed by the employer.
The works council objected to this in its proceedings initiated at the labor court in early February 2022 and claimed that the employer refrained from making salary deductions for works council and substitute members - for the periods specified in more detail.
He is of the opinion that the employer's approach constitutes a committee-related obstruction of his work, a disadvantage to his members and a violation of the principle of trustful cooperation. In later extensions to his application, he has filed a request for a declaratory judgment in this regard.
The employer is of the opinion that it was justified in taking the procedure complained of. Due to the lack of deregistration and registration of the works council members, it was not possible for it to determine whether they had attended virtual works council meetings during their periods of absence from work and had carried out works council activities or had simply been absent from work without excuse. In the lower courts, it was therefore legitimate to deny on the grounds of ignorance that the members of the works council had attended its meetings from home and had carried out the necessary works council activities before and after the meetings.
The Cologne Labor Court has rejected the injunction requests pending before it. The Cologne Regional Labor Court has rejected the appeal filed by the works council against this and which included the declaratory action. The Federal Labor Court has also rejected the works council's appeal.
2. DECISION
In the opinion of the Federal Labour Court, the works council's applications for an injunction are already inadmissible. Failure to reduce wages - as shown in the wage statement and implemented in a wage payment in accordance with the statement - means in substance the demand for a different calculation of wages in the future and their full payment. The works council's request is therefore essentially directed at future actions within the meaning of § 259 Code of Civil Procedure. Admittedly, an asserted obligation to refrain from doing something does not have to be limited to mere inaction, but can include the obligation to take action. However, according to the Federal Labour Court, the question of whether an intended title imposes an obligation to act or an obligation to refrain from doing something depends fundamentally on the focus of the obligation in question.
According to the BAG, the legal protection objectives only cover claims that arise in the future. For the works council and substitute members, the right to payment of wages arises according to Section 108 para. 1 sentence 1 GewO (only) when it is paid and the claim to remuneration (only) when the work is performed or when the conditions are met under which they are entitled to remuneration without performing work. In the present case, if the injunction requests were titled, it would inevitably remain unclear what is meant by (the refraining from) "implementing salary deductions". It would not be clear to the employer which specific action it had to refrain from. Regardless of this, the formulated injunction requests would not clarify the employer's objection that it was not in a position to know whether the works council and substitute members "attended" the meetings "from home" and possibly carried out the necessary works council activities before or after, and could legitimately deny this on the grounds of ignorance, and would thus be shifted to the enforcement proceedings. In the opinion of the Federal Labour Court, it is also not possible to understand the inadmissible injunction requests as declaratory actions.
In the opinion of the Federal Labour Court, the applications for a declaratory judgment are also inadmissible because they do not meet the requirements of the Section 256 para. 1 ZPO are not sufficient. There is no legal relationship that can be established. A legal relationship is the relationship between a person and another person or thing resulting from a specific life situation that contains a subjective right or from which such a right can arise. Abstract legal questions, mere elements of a legal relationship or preliminary legal questions are not a legal relationship within the meaning of Section 256 para. 1 ZPOThe determination claimed by the works council is aimed at the employer's "lack of authority" to establish a more precisely described constellation ("times at which works council members/substitute members can attend works council meetings from home as invited participants after Section 30 Paragraph 2 BetrVG in conjunction with the rules of procedure of the works council via video or telephone conference") to a specific legal assessment ("to be treated as unexcused absences"). In the opinion of the BAG, this does not concern a legal relationship between one party and the other or to a matter. Rather, the works council is seeking a legal assessment of a procedure.
In addition, the necessary special interest in establishing the facts within the meaning of Section 256 para. 1 ZPO. The special interest of the Section 256 para. 1 ZPO is not given if a determination of the requested content does not lead to an appropriate or exhaustive solution to the dispute and the legal uncertainty continues to exist. In the present case, the requested determination has no pacifying function, since the works council relates it to times of "participation" by works council and substitute members in (virtual) works council meetings; however, the employer has specifically denied such "participation" (without knowledge). This means that the dispute between the parties would not be conclusively resolved even if a decision were made on the application.
3. CONCLUSION
The decision of the Federal Labor Court shows how important it can be to file a correct application in labor court proceedings. Whether an injunction application is sufficiently specific or whether it is an application for future performance requires a precise legal examination. The hasty filing of declaratory applications should also be avoided if it has not been precisely examined whether they meet the requirements of Section 256 para. 1 ZPO fulfill.
