A sensitive case with a political dimension was heard in the Bayreuth Labor Court on Wednesday. The complaint of a Kulmbacher who had been released from the city of Kulmbach in August landed on Antje Schne’s judges’ table. The reason for the termination without notice was the threat from the employee that he could also get sick if he was not transferred back to the public office.
The 33-year-old’s case is the aftermath of the turbulent mayor election a year ago in Kulmbach. The plaintiff was one of the two suspects under investigation for election rigging. Four days before the runoff election on March 29, in which Ingo Lehmann (SPD) narrowly prevailed against incumbent Mayor Henry Schramm (CSU), shredded postal voting documents were discovered in a city building, as reported.
Investigation stopped
The investigation ended a month later. The public prosecutor said that the accused had replaced damaged or returned postal voting envelopes in small numbers with new ones and shredded them. However, it was not found “that the accused manipulated ballot papers or disposed of ballot papers in order to favor an election candidate”.
While the plaintiff says he has not yet found a new job, the second suspect found a new job: He works in the Upper Franconian district in Bayreuth.
The employee was released during the investigation period. He then came back to work and was transferred from the citizen’s office to the school department. His work performance is said to have been unsatisfactory there.
He is also said to have told his superiors that he was aiming for a return to the public office or a severance payment. Otherwise he cannot guarantee that he will not be unable to work again. The conversation he wanted with Mayor Lehmann took place on July 20th. On July 22nd, the man called in sick. He was given notice on August 4th.
Rge for the OB
In this context, the chairman of the first chamber ruled that Mayor Lehmann had not come to the court hearing. “His personal appearance had been ordered,” explained Schne – um Errtern, “what happened that July 20th.”
The city lawyer Michael Thamm contradicted the representation of the court. From the summons it emerges that the mayor can send a representative, according to the senior legal council.
Thamm could not say anything about the content of the conversation in question. But the plaintiff reported from the meeting: “I looked him in the eye and said that I was not well and that I was sick.” The events were “an extreme psychological burden” for him.
In response to his determination “that I am not satisfied with the work,” the mayor promised him that he could get another job if something happened. For the time being, he should stay in the school office.
“They parted after an amicable conversation,” said the plaintiff’s representative, attorney Horst Hohenner. Although it was clear that, according to Mayor Lehmann, a return to the citizen’s office was out of the question, there was no talk of termination of the employment relationship or severance pay. “The causal chain has been broken, there was no reason for a termination,” emphasized Hohenner.
Supervisor shocked
According to Oberrechtsrat Thamm, the dismissal was not about the actual illness or the medical certificate, but about the employee’s threat that he could get sick if he does not get what he wants. The employee’s supervisor was shocked and therefore made an interview note.
According to the judge, it should now be clarified whether it was really a threat. She also mentioned the proportionality of the termination, because beforehand there would also have been the possibility of a warning. Finally, Schne asked how the parties stand on a comparison. Both sides showed willingness to come to an amicable agreement.
Lawyer Hohenner indicated that his client, who had been with the city for four years and four months, did not want to give up his job in the public service and was aiming to return. “The employment relationship is strained, you have to endure it,” said the judge, pointing out that, for example, personnel are being sought in the public health service. When the city’s lawyer showed the willingness to pay a severance payment, an agreement was quickly reached.
Three weeks to think about it
The revocable settlement is such that the termination becomes ineffective and the employment relationship ends on December 31, 2020. Until then, the salary will be paid. The allegations are not upheld and the plaintiff is given a benevolent job reference. The severance payment amounts to 10,000 euros. Both parties now have three weeks to think about it. In the event of a revocation, the court will issue a judgment.
–
