Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
5 PB 2/21, 5 PB 2/21 (5 P 5/21) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2021:150321B5PB2.21.0 Généré par l'IA

Admissibility of co-determination challenge to re-grading a student helper via self-contained remuneration ordinance instead of collective agreement

Numéro de cause 5 PB 2/21, 5 PB 2/21 (5 P 5/21)
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Allemagne (DE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Admis (Allowed)
Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The Federal Administrative Court granted the leave to appeal, reversing the lower court's refusal and admitting the employer's legal complaint for substantive review. The dispute concerns a public service personnel proceeding where the employer challenges whether it violated the staff council's co-determination rights by re-grading a student helper into a salary group pursuant to a self-contained remuneration ordinance, rather than implementing a requested grading based on a collective agreement, without the council's consent or its substitution. The decisive legal basis is the requirement of a "compelling reason" under § 80 Abs. 6 Satz 4 of the Hamburg Personnel Representation Act, with the court determining that the admissibility of such a unilateral deviation from collective agreement grading constitutes a question of fundamental importance justifying Supreme Court intervention.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 92 Abs. 1 Satz 2 ArbGG, § 99 Abs. 2 HmbPersVG, § 72 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 ArbGG; Admissibility of co-determination challenge to re-grading a student helper via self-contained remuneration ordinance instead of collective agreement: The dispute concerns a public service personnel proceeding where the employer challenges whether it violated the staff council's co-determination rights by re-grading a student helper into a salary group pursuant to a self-contained remuneration ordinance, rather than implementing a requested grading based on a collective agreement, without the council's consent or its substitution. The decisive legal basis is the requirement of a "compelling reason" under § 80 Abs. 6 Satz 4 of the Hamburg Personnel Representation Act, with the court determining that the admissibility of such a unilateral deviation from collective agreement grading constitutes a question of fundamental importance justifying Supreme Court intervention.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
convention collective conditions matérielles réclamation administrative droit de la fonction publique droit au travail justes motifs

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 92 Abs. 1 Satz 2 ArbGG
Procedural rule cited in the operative part governing the application of labor court procedural standards to this personnel representation matter.
§ 99 Abs. 2 HmbPersVG
Procedural basis cited in the operative part to reverse the lower court's refusal and admit the appeal.
§ 72 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 ArbGG
Substantive ground cited in the operative part establishing the appeal was based on a question of fundamental importance.
Généré par l'IA
5 P 11/20
Scope of co-determination in reclassification: application of non-codetermined pay scales and presumption of consent
6 P 23/10
Works council co-determination on pay grading when assigning an employee to a previously evaluated workstation
5 PB 3/21, 5 PB 3/21 (5 P 6/21)
Admissibility of appeal for fundamental question on whether deviation from tariff-based reclassification constitutes a valid reason to deny works council consent under public service co-determination law
6 P 16/13
Co-determination of staff council for joint institution vs. transferring employer in assigning duties and function levels
7 ABR 35/09
Works Council Co-Determination on Employee Reclassification Under a Collective Agreement’s Job Evaluation System and the Effect of Protocol Notes Excluding Statutory Rights

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
§ 99 Abs. 2 HmbPersVG

Procedural basis cited in the operative part to reverse the lower court's refusal and admit the appeal.

§ 72 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 ArbGG

Substantive ground cited in the operative part establishing the appeal was based on a question of fundamental importance.

§ 92 Abs. 1 Satz 2 ArbGG

Procedural rule cited in the operative part governing the application of labor court procedural standards to this personnel representation matter.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

Zulassung der Rechtsbeschwerde; triftiger Grund i.S.d. § 80 Abs. 6 Satz 4 HmbPersVG

[TENOR]

Die Nichtzulassung der Rechtsbeschwerde in dem Beschluss des Hamburgischen Oberverwaltungsgerichts - 2. Fachsenat für Personalvertretungssachen nach dem Landespersonalvertretungsrecht - vom 10. November 2020 wird aufgehoben.

Die Rechtsbeschwerde des Beteiligten, die sich darauf bezieht, ob der Beteiligte das Mitbestimmungsrecht des Antragstellers verletzt hat, indem er eine studentische Hilfskraft (neu) eingruppiert hat, ohne dass der Antragsteller dem zugestimmt hat bzw. die Zustimmung des Antragstellers ersetzt wurde, wird zugelassen.

[GRUENDE]

Die Rechtsbeschwerde des Beteiligten ist gemäß § 99 Abs. 2 HmbPersVG i.V.m. § 72 Abs. 2 Nr. 1, § 92 Abs. 1 Satz 2 ArbGG wegen einer entscheidungserheblichen Rechtsfrage von grundsätzlicher Bedeutung zuzulassen.

Die Rechtssache kann dem Senat Gelegenheit zur Klärung der Frage geben, ob es einen triftigen Grund im Sinne des § 80 Abs. 6 Satz 4 HmbPersVG darstellt, wenn der Personalrat rügt, dass eine beantragte Eingruppierung nach Maßgabe eines Tarifvertrags tatsächlich nicht umgesetzt und der betreffende Beschäftigte stattdessen anhand einer eigenständigen Vergütungsordnung eingruppiert werden soll.