On 14.01.2022 has #Federal Labor Court published its reasons for the decision made on October 13.10.2021, 615. According to this, in the case of a state-ordered company closure, there is no case of an operational risk to be borne by the employer in accordance with § XNUMX BGB.
In detail, this means the following:
In principle, according to the case law of #BAG the employer that #operationalriskbecause he runs the business, organizes the operational processes, bears responsibility and receives the income (BAG 08.02.1957/338/55 - AZR XNUMX/XNUMX).
The employer must therefore be responsible if he cannot employ the employee, be it due to a lack of raw materials, defective machines or software errors.
The most important consequence for employees is that the employer still has to pay the salary.
According to the BAG, however, the situation is different if the company is closed due to an order issued by the state.
A distinction should be made as follows:
➡️ If the closure is the employer's own decision, for example to counteract the absence of customers or a sharp drop in sales, then it is a question of
an autonomous decision of the employer. Accordingly, the employer would face the operational risk with the result that the salaries of the employees would continue to be paid.
➡️ However, if the temporary closure is due to an official order as part of general measures to combat the pandemic and for reasons of civil protection, then the operational risk does not apply. Accordingly, the employer's obligation to continue to pay wages does not apply if the company is closed to protect the population from serious and fatal illnesses as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infections.
Welcome to
We are pleased that, with Mr. Michael Veith, we are excellent in the areas of banking and capital market law, leasing and factoring as well as restructuring and insolvency law with an experienced,
