No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
For decades, German labor law has been among the most advanced in the world, although no labor code was ever enacted like, for e.g., in France with its ‘Code du travail’ adopted on 15th November 1973. In Germany, after World War II, German labor legislation developed a great variety of specific Acts covering individual and collective labor law. Basics, like protection against dismissal or collective bargaining, as well as employee participation in works councils, reached a high level. Although German law belongs to the Continental legal systems and thus is mainly based on legislation, some of the most important aspects of collective labor law, especially trade union law and the right to strike are not regulated by statutory law. Bundesarbeitsgericht (the Federal Labor Court) and Bundesverfassungsgericht (the Federal Constitutional Court) filled in the blanks step by step in a variety of decisions. Accordingly, these crucial fields of labor relations are based on mere case law. It turned out to be politically impossible to get trade union law and the law on strike and lock-outs enacted. Despite statements to the contrary, the parties involved seem to be content with this rather flexible handling. On the whole, German labor law became more and more protective over the years, including aspects like equality and prohibition of discrimination in employment, sick-leave payment, and the possibility to claim a part-time job under the 2000 Act on Teilzeit- und Befristungsgesetz – TzBfG (Part Time and Temporary Work).
1 See e.g, Bünger, Ralph, Der verhandlungsbegleitende Warnstreik (1996), with numerous references.Google Scholar
2 The term was eminently coined by Albert, Michel, Capitalisme contre Capitalisme (1990). On the ongoing debate over the fate and prospects of the German model of Capitalism, welfare policy and corporate governance see e.g., Zumbansen, Peer, Germany Inc. Eroding? – Board Structure, CEO and Rhenish Capitalism, 3 German Law Journal No. 6 (1 June 2002), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=156; Jürgen Hoffmann, Co-ordinated Continental Eurpoean Market Economies Under Pressure From Globalisation: Germany's “Rhineland capitalism”, 5 German Law Journal No. 8 (1 August 2004), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=485; Peter Kolla, The Mannesmann Trial and the Role of the Courts, 5 German Law Journal No. 7 (1 July 2004), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=460.Google Scholar
3 From the worldwide coverage of the events in Detroit and Rüsselsheim, See e.g., http://www.dwworld.de/dw/article/0,1564, 1362090,00.html; http://www.dwworld.de/dwelle/cda/popups/dwelle.cda.popups.galeriebild/0,3804,266_G_1427059_1426850_17,00.html.http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0410/19/autos-306467.htm; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4083159.stm.Google Scholar
4 Habbard, Pierre and Jones, Roy, A breakthrough for stakeholders, Mitbestimmung No. 8, (2004) 18.Google Scholar
5 Albert, Michel, Capitalisme contre Capitalisme (1990).Google Scholar
6 Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland: available at: www.destatis.de/basis/d/erwerb/erwerbtab3.php.Google Scholar
7 Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland: available at: www.destatis.de/basis/d/erwerb/erwerbtab4.php.Google Scholar
8 Deliberations of the 65th German Lawyers’ Association Symposium 2004 (Verhandlungen des 65. Deutschen Juristentages, Bonn 2004, Band I: Gutachten; Band II/1: Referate und Beschlüsse; Band II/2: Diskussion und Beschlussfassung).Google Scholar
9 Junker, Abbo, Arbeitsrecht zwischen Markt und gesellschaftspolitischen Herausforderungen, Gutachten B zum 65. Deutschen Juristentag 46 (2004).Google Scholar
10 Id., 84.Google Scholar
11 BGBl. I p. 602.Google Scholar
12 As to the recent amendments to the Dismissal Protection Act cf. Thomas Ubber, Agenda 2010: Reform of German Labor Law: Impact on Hiring and Firing Staff, 5 German Law Journal No. 2 (1 February 2004), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=380.Google Scholar
13 Junker, Abbo & Dietrich, Ute, Schwellenwerte in arbeitsrechtlichen Gesetzen, Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht (NZA) 2003, 1057.Google Scholar
14 Endress, Esther, Schwellenwertregelungen im Arbeitsrecht – Verfassungsrechtliche und rechtspolitische Fragen, 2002.Google Scholar
15 See, supra, note 9 at S. 39.Google Scholar
16 See, supra, note 13 at 1059.Google Scholar
17 Thomas K. Bauer, Stefan Bender, & Holger Bonin, Dismissal Protection and Worker Flows in Small Establishments, IZA discussion paper no. 1105, April 2004; Sher Verick, Threshold Effects of Dismissal Protection Legislation in Germany, IZA discussion paper no. 991, January 2004; Werner Friedrich & Helmut Hägele, Ökonomische Konsequenzen von Schwellenwerten im Arbeits- und Sozialrecht sowie die Auswirkung dieser Regelungen – Kurzfassung des Endberichts, 1997; Joachim Wagner, Claus Schnabel & Arnd Kölling, in: Ehrig, Detlev & Kalmbach, Peter (eds.): Weniger Arbeitslose – aber wie?, (2001) 177; Harald Bielinski, Josef Hartmann, Heide Pfarr, & Hartmut Seifert, Die Beendigung von Arbeitsverhältnissen: Wahrnehmnung und Wirklichkeit, Arbeit und Recht (2003), 81.Google Scholar
18 Janßen, Peter, Arbeitsrecht und unternehmerische Einstellungsbereitschaft, 31 iw-trends No. 2 (2004), 16.Google Scholar
19 Pfarr, Heide, Arbeitsrecht zwischen Markt und gesellschaftspolitischen Herausforderungen – Differenzierung nach Unternehmensgröße?, paper presented at the 65th German Lawyers’ Association Symposium 2004 (not yet published).Google Scholar
20 Sadowski, Dieter, Arbeitsrecht zwischen Markt und gesellschaftspolitischen Herausforderungen: Differenzierung nach der Unternehmensgröße?, economic paper presented at the 65th German Lawyers’ Association Symposium 2004 (not yet published).Google Scholar
21 Nickell, Stephen & Layard, Richard, Labor Market Institutions and Economic Performance, 3 Handbook of Labor Economics c. 3080 (1999); Ronald Schettkat, Mehr Arbeit durch weniger Recht?, Wirtschaftsdienst No. 83 (2003), 225.Google Scholar
22 See further Manfred Weiss, Modernizing the German Works Council System: A Recent Amendment, 18 International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations (IJCLLIR) No. 3 (2002), 251.Google Scholar
23 BT-Dr (Official Gazette – Bundestagsdrucksache) 14/5741, p. 2.Google Scholar
24 Marita Körner, Formen der Arbeitnehmermitwirkung: Das französische Comité d'entreprise (1999).Google Scholar
25 Marlene Schmidt, The Right to Part-time Work under German law: Progress in or boomerang for equal employment opportunities? 30 Industrial Law Journal (2001) 335.Google Scholar
26 Art. 77 Works Constitution Act of 21st September 2001.Google Scholar
27 Cf. Seifert, Achim, Employment Protection and Employment Promotion as Goals of Collective Bargaining in the Federal Republic of Germany, 15 International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations (IJCLLIR)_ No. 4 (1999), 343.Google Scholar
28 BAG AP Nr. 89 zu Art. 9 GG (20 April 1999).Google Scholar
29 Buchner, Herbert, Öffnung der Tarifverträge im Spannungsfeld verfassungsrechtlicher Vorgaben und arbeitsmarktpolitischer Erfordernisse, in: Gedächtnisschrift für Meinhard Heinze 105 (Söllner, Alfred et al. eds. 2005).Google Scholar
You have
Access