-
fromAnnette Schlegl
–
conclude
–
At the quality appointment before the Offenbach Labor Court, there is no comparison between a corona test refuser and his employer BMI. He is one of the former 19 refusals.
The employer requires proof of two negative corona test results, the employee refuses these tests. That was the starting point for a quality appointment that took place on Wednesday afternoon at the Offenbach Labor Court. An employee in the Heusenstammer plant of the building materials company BMI, who has not received a wage since January 16, because he has not yet been tested for Corona, had sued. However, an amicable agreement between the two parties failed. According to judge Ingrid Hopfner, the main proceedings in the matter will now take place in March or April.
The plaintiff is only one of 19 foundry employees who refused to submit two negative corona tests at the Heusenstammer location of the roof manufacturer BMI, which the company stipulated from January 4 in a company agreement valid until March 31. They were therefore no longer allowed to enter the company premises. In the foundry, where aluminum is made for roof accessories such as chimney steps, there was a shortage of workers; production there was temporarily idle.
The company, which had quick tests carried out itself and even paid employees external tests, cut the wages of those who refused from January 16 for all subsequent days without work. 18 of the 19 test objectors then submitted temporary injunctions for employment. In the previous week and at the beginning of this week, the Offenbach Labor Court negotiated a total of four urgent proceedings – and dismissed the urgency in all cases, as further employment is still possible. 16 of the 19 test refusals have now taken a corona test and have returned to work, three employees have remained “tough”.
One of them is the plaintiff, who was able to describe his view of things at the quality appointment on Wednesday. He has been with BMI since 1989 and has not received a salary and two warnings for his refusal since January 16. He sees the instruction to carry out the corona tests a violation of the right to self-determination. The rapid test is disproportionate because it constitutes an invasive intervention in the physical integrity, his lawyer Frank Linzer made clear.
A test may only be ordered if there is an obligation under public law, and there is no such thing because his client does not travel from a risk area. “The local living room is not a risk area,” he said.
“The worst-case scenario would be termination. It will probably not come to that, ”judge Hopfner sent an appeal to assessor Nina Günter from the employers’ association, Stones and Earths, who represented the employer in court. This offered the plaintiff to pay half of the wages lost from January 16 if he takes a test and repeats it after five days. The man from Zellhausen declared that he was “as a sign of goodwill” ready to take a test at the family doctor. “A throat test, but not the nose test that the employer carries out.” However, after consulting the employer, the assessor insisted on two tests. “In fairness to the other colleagues who also had to do two tests.”
The judge’s offer for comparison: two tests, 70 percent additional payment, deleting warnings by June 30th. The plaintiff did not want to get involved. It was questionable for him whether it would stay with the two tests, he explained.
–
