Employment and Economic

* Employers may be monitored by a detective on sick people and provide them with the costs charged if they have faked the illness really just to get a sick pay. Requirement is a concrete suspicion that the employee's illness only pretending.
BAG Kassel, AZ: 8 AZR 5 / 97


* An employee who refused to accept a new job, but it immediately and without observing the notice period, simply stayed away from the operation of his former employer, and sent this with a sick note. The employer, however, did not trust the fake illness and asked a detective with the investigation.
ArbG Hanover, AZ: 5 CA 118/91


* An employee who is sick and unable to work and at home for private purposes is working (in this painting and wallpapering), may be dismissed in principle.
LAG Rheinland-Pfalz, AZ: SA 979/99


* An active assistance in house construction during the sick leave may terminate. Who is to cure rather than on new construction of his house by, for example, transport and works, participates, may be terminated in due time by his employer. An ill-written employee is obliged to behave and to refrain, which will delay his recovery. If the employee has the disease, although it may appear, is even a dismissal allowed.
LAG Hamm, AZ: 15 SA 437/91


* Can demonstrate an employer to an employee that this disease has stalled, he is entitled to reimbursement of the detective costs that were spent to investigate the matter.
LAG Köln AZ: SA 1636/87


* An employee who behaves during a recovery-retardant attested medical disability is guilty of an intentional breach of contract and is binding upon the employer to pay compensation. The employer can not be said, that he had to arrange for the observation of the employee by their own employees. The employer may hire private investigators to this investigation and surveillance activities.
LAG Rheinland-Pfalz, AZ: 5 SA 540/99


* For very serious infringements, the confidence of the employer is disturbed to accept workers, the courts also an immediate dismissal without prior warning. The view of the courts of "particularly severe violations" ranging from the theft of a piece of cake, AZ BAG 2 AZR 3 / 83, to start work in a foreign operation in spite of a sick note.
LAG Munich, AZ: 6 SA 96/82


* Forges an employee's expense report and submitting false documents may lead him, even if the employer has only a minor damage was caused to be terminated without notice. Since the relationship of trust between employer and employee is impaired to such an extent must a notice be not complied with.

In similar cases, the BAG has spoken for theft, fraud and misappropriation law.
Labour Court Frankfurt am Main, AZ: 5 CA 8350/99


* Has the involvement of a detective apparently commissioned the facts and circumstances to learn to prove the alleged anti-competitive behavior and, based on submissions to apply for an injunction, then the involvement of a detective agency properly and procedure preparation, but also necessary (in accordance with § 91 para 1 CCP).
OLG Koblenz, AZ: 14 W 268/91


* Have submitted his future employer, a candidate's phony evidence, he must also do even after his release damages. The LAG Köln decided to spent the remuneration including employer contributions to social security are to be repaid. An employer must be able to rely on that employment references correspond to the truth.
LAG Köln, AZ: 11 SA 1511/99


* An employer may reimburse an employee who has been in official matters to be bribed, without notice. Insignificant is whether the employer has incurred a loss. The trust relationship is disturbed and there is a risk that the employee no longer performs the sole interests of his company. For a dismissal, this is reason enough.
LAG Dusseldorf, AZ: 18 SA 366/01


* Covert video surveillance is permissible if goods are created and losses, the use of hidden cameras, the ability to identify the perpetrator. For specific suspicions the council needs to be so informed.
BAG, 5 AZR 116/86


* Private Investigators can monitor workers in operation, it must not inform the management of the council.
BAG, AZ: ABR 26/90


* A detective agency has carried out test purchases on behalf of the Board. Without approval of the works were sellers and cashiers checks in their work. The council had lodged a complaint because of this measure. The judges ruled:
Such contracts to security companies are not subject to the right of participation of a works council and were admissible.
BAG Erfurt, AZ: 1 ABR 34/00


* Test purchases are sufficient as evidence.
AG Kaiserslautern, AZ 5 CA 119/84