[ad_1]
The expulsion of an elderly houseworker moves many people: on Saturdays she was at Corona rallies, on Mondays she called in sick and did not want to take the exam. Is there only termination without notice?
Finished in shirt sleeves for one participant from the Berlin Crown protests at the weekend a retirement home north of Hamburg is causing a sensation. “Haus Itzstedt” fired an employee without notice after she rejected a crown test on Monday. The facility with room for 65 seniors is suddenly at the center of a social conflict. She receives a shower of reactions, initially negative, but now also congratulations and thanks.
The expulsion has allegedly been made public by those affected themselves: The resignation letter appeared in groups in which “crown rebels” and “lateral thinkers” meet or report. The details of the address were crossed out, but the last name of the person in question is recognizable. The seal, name and signature are legible below the termination without prior notice.
(What: Telegram)
The house has been receiving damning ratings from Google since Monday night. “Violence is routine,” someone says. “Keep old folks in a cage like hamsters,” another user writes. After the campaign was unveiled, numerous users are now voicing their praise.
Approval of expulsion between peers
Initially, the management of the family facility could not be reached for comment. According to information on t-online.de, the termination is real. The employee is apparently a cleaner. At home, the firing of other employees is said to have been met with great approval.
The newspaper explains how this happened: The employee posted on Facebook that she was participating in the corona demonstrations. When the woman called in sick Monday with cold symptoms, home management requested a corona test. The woman declined, and she was given unannounced notice the same day.
Expert: profane warning, but justified
“We will see cases of this type more often in the labor courts in the future,” says Arnd Diringer, professor of law at the University of Ludwigsburg and director of the research center for labor law there. He thinks: The termination was phrased in an amateurish and awkward way, but it could be justified.
The house has an important reason for the extraordinary completion: it has a duty to protect residents who are a risk group. “What should the employer do if someone has contact with a patient and refuses to take a test despite indications of increased risk?” Asks Diringer.
An employer cannot ask all employees to get tested for no reason. “Here there are concrete indications of a greater risk of contagion”, emphasizes the lawyer. The woman finally complains of symptoms after attending a high-risk event with many people. “That could also have been a wedding or a Black Lives Matter demo,” says Diringer.
Therefore, this is not a “disapproval”. This is what users close to the field of “lateral thinking” affirm on social networks. Nor is such termination allowed, explains Diringer. “What someone does outside of work is not the employer’s business, as long as it doesn’t affect the employment relationship.”
The comparison is probably made
From a legal point of view, the question finally arises: Was there no other option than termination? “A warning doesn’t solve the problem here if the employee persistently refuses,” Diringer said.
It is also questionable whether an employer can be expected to properly fire someone who is unable to perform any work during the reporting period. How long the employee has been employed and how the relationship was in the past also plays a role. This is information that does not result from the termination and that the employer cannot make public.
According to Diringer, the extraordinary dismissal is unlikely to continue if the employee takes action against them: “Most dismissal protection processes end with an agreement.” There is a lot of money at stake for both parties if a process takes a long time.
