7
Duty to Loyalty, Fundamental Rights, and Public Policy: German Whistleblowing…
171
whistle externally from the outset, if there is a legal duty to report, if serious offences are in question, if the employer has committed the crimes himself, or if there is no reasonable expectation that an internal complaint will be sufficient in bringing wrongdoings to a halt.85 This conception means on the one hand that a dismissal is not automatically valid if the whistleblower has failed to keep the information on illegal or unethical practices inside the organisation as the first step. On the other hand, informing public authorities or even the media as the first step can constitute a reason for the termination of an employment contract though the whistleblower has not knowingly or frivolously raised false accusations. So the approach of the Federal Labour Court oscillates between a conception of whistleblowing as tool to improve the ability of organisations to deal with wrongdoings autonomously and a conception in which whistleblowing is a tool to enhance the transparency of organisations.86 Whether the passing of information to the trade union is a case of external whistleblowing is not yet clear.87 The same rules apply when the employee has not lodged a complaint but only threated to do so, in particular with the goal to achieve advantages for himself,88 or if he has accused colleagues.89
Level of Protection Several regulations prohibit expressly any reprisal by the employer in the case of whistleblowing or exercising a right to complaint. This is true of Sec. 16 (1) 1 AGG, Sec. 4f (3) S. 2 BDSG, and Sec. 17 (2) S. 2 ArbSchG. These provisions are amended by the general rule in Sec. 612a BGB that the employer may not discriminate against an employee who only has exercised his rights. So in theory there is a 85
BAG 3.7.2003 – 2 AZR 235/02, BAGE 107, 36 (at 45–46); affirmative BAG 31.7.2014 – 2 AZR 505/13, BAGE 149, 1 (at 15–16). See also LAG Hamm 12.11.1990 – 19 (16) Sa 9/90, LAGE BGB § 626 No 54: no need for previous information to the employer if the accusations are true and the immediate report to external public bodies is the only way for the employee to avoid prosecution for tax fraud. In the case of informing external public authorities by works councils BAG 3.6.2003 1 ABR 19/02, BAGE 106, 188 (at 196) tends to favour internal whistleblowing as a rule. 86 As to this aspect in detail G Forst, ‘Whistleblowing im internationalen Vergleich – Was kann Deutschland von seinen Nachbarn lernen?’ (2013) EuZA 37–82 (see 73–74). 87 In this direction LAG Baden-Württemberg 20.10.1976 – 6 Sa 51/76, EzA KSchG § 1 Verhaltensbedingte Kündigung No. 8 with critical comment of M Weiss. 88 cf. BAG 14.11.1984 – 7 AZR 133/83, AP BGB § 629 No. 89 (at II 3); BAG 11.3.1999 – 2 AZR 507/98, AP BGB § 626 No. 149 (at II 1); LAG Rheinland-Pfalz 17.11.2004 – 10 Sa 1329/03, Juris; LAG Brandenburg 21.12.2009 – 10 Sa 2193/09 u. a., Juris; LAG Sachsen 21.1.2011 – 3 Sa 181/10, NZA-RR 2011, 290; LAG Schleswig-Holstein 17.8.2011 – 3 Sa 196/11, LAGE BGB § 626 No. 35; LAG Hessen 26.10.2011 – 8 Sa 1554/10, Juris; LAG Hessen 5.4.2012 – 5 Sa 1117/11, Juris; LAG Hamm 13.11.2012 – 14 Sa 1178/12, LAGE BGB § 626 No. 38a; LAG Rheinland-Pfalz 15.5.2014 – 5 Sa 60/14, Juris. 89 LAG Frankfurt a. M. 14.2.1991 – 12 Sa 846/90, LAGE KSchG § 1 Verhaltensbedingte Kündigung No. 31; LAG Nürnberg 16.9.2011 – 4 Sa 297/10, Juris; BAG 11.7.2013 – 2 AZR 994/12, AP KSchG § 1 Verhaltensbedingte Kündigung No. 69.
