In its judgment of February 08.02.2022, 1 (case number: 233 AZR 21/XNUMX), the Federal Labor Court decided that a declaration made by the works council chairman concluding a works agreement cannot be attributed to the works council according to the principles of prima facie authority.
1. FACTS
In the proceedings, the parties dispute which classification system is relevant for calculating the plaintiff employee's pay. In the context of this dispute, the employer relied on what it considered to be an effective works agreement. The plaintiff, however, was of the opinion that this works agreement was ineffective due to the lack of a works council resolution. The works council approved the works agreement with the majority of the members present. In any case, it can be assumed that the works council chairman has prima facie authority.
2. DECISION
The Federal Labor Court found the disputed works agreement to be ineffective. In the decision, it stated, among other things: A works agreement signed by the works council chairman cannot be validly concluded between the employer and the works council if there is no resolution by the works council (possibly also subsequently approved) for its conclusion.
According to the legal concept, the works council acts as a collegial body. He forms his will through appropriate works council resolutions (§ 33 BetrVG). The declaration by the works council chairman is (pending) ineffective and therefore fundamentally has no legal effect. Such a declaration cannot be attributed to the works council committee based on the apparent authority of the works council chairman. This presupposes that the person represented (here: the works council) is not aware of the actions of the fictitious representative (here: the works council chairman), but could have recognized and prevented them with due care. In addition, the contractual partner must have trusted that the person represented knew and approved of the representative's actions.
However, these principles are not directly applicable to the relationship between the works council and the works council chairman. The Works Constitution Act defines the role of the works council chairman in a special way. The chairman represents the committee accordingly Section 26 Paragraph 1 BetrVG only within the framework of the decisions made. There is therefore no representation in the will, but only in the declaration of the person represented. This is a significant difference to “classic” representation. A corresponding application when concluding company agreements is also not necessary. Company agreements are due to the in Section 77 Paragraph 4 BetrVG so-called acts of private legislation have a certain direct and compelling effect on the addressees. Independently of the will and knowledge of the contracting parties, they shaped the employment relationships of the company's employees - solely by legal order. It would be incompatible with this character and the far-reaching effect if the mere issuing of a legal certificate by the works council or its members could establish the legal effect.
3. CONCLUSION
Employers should (and this is usually how it is done) always provide themselves with a copy of the minutes of the works council meetings. This applies in particular if the works council has made corresponding resolutions regarding works agreements. The employer has the right to do this Section 34 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 BetrVG – at least if he took part in the meeting.
