"You colleague pig!", It burst out of a worker, whereupon he cashed the notice. But when does the insult of superiors justify the sacking? The regional labor court Cologne decided in a concrete case (AZ 11 Sa 905/13). Tip: In employment disputes, you stand with a professional legal protection on the safe side.
One word gives the other, until the situation escalates – in dispute, a legal protection can help. >>
In the case of gross insult of superiors by employees, these can flourish without notice. Everyone knows it: The minds are heated during a dispute, the preservation of objectivity is increasingly difficult. Therefore, employers always have to respect proportionality in case of dismissal for insult.
Basically, however, the case law of the Federal Labor Court (BAG) determines: gross insults of superiors, employers or work colleagues constitute a significant violation of the contractual obligation to treat the contract – and justify an extraordinary, immediate dismissal by the employer.
The case, which was heard by the regional labor court in Cologne, concerned a technical employee who suffered from health problems. This led the employee back to working conditions at the test bench where he worked. After being unfit for work for four months, there was an interview regarding his reintegration into the factory.
As part of this, the employee wanted to be transferred to another team and called his current supervisor a "colleague pig". Ultimately, he agreed to the reintegration measures of his employer and the continued employment in his previous team, reports also "n-tv.de" on the verdict.
Nevertheless, the company announced the employee for insulting superiors. Allegedly, the employee has repeatedly described his team leader in a defamatory manner as a "colleague pig".
Employer protection is also helpful in these cases. >>
The employee then brought action for protection against dismissal and was right by the Landesarbeitsgericht Köln: Although there was a gross insult to superiors by the plaintiff, it should however be taken into account that it was a one-time incident – which also occurs in a confidential interview in the absence of the supervisor have. In the view of the Cologne judges a warning would have been the more appropriate reaction of the employer.
Please read the content of our legal information.