Darmstadt Regional Social Court, 11 October 2006, Ref.: L 6 AL 24/05
The payment of unemployment benefit may be blocked for a certain period of time due to certain behaviour on the part of the unemployed person. According to § 144 Para. 1 No. 1, Para. 3 SGB III, a blocking period occurs, among other things, if the unemployed person has terminated the employment relationship or has given cause for the termination of the employment relationship through behaviour in breach of the employment contract and has thereby intentionally or grossly negligently caused unemployment.
However, even in these cases, the suspension period only applies if the unemployed person did not have good cause for the dismissal. According to § 144 SGB III, the objective of the blocking period regulation must be taken into account when assessing good cause. Accordingly, a blocking period only occurs if the employee can reasonably be expected to behave differently, taking into account all the circumstances of the individual case and weighing his interests against the interests of the insured community.
FactsThe plaintiff worked in a company in Hesse where employees were allowed to smoke at work. The plaintiff was therefore forced to smoke passively all day. To put an end to this situation, the plaintiff asked his boss to ban smoking in the company. The boss refused and the plaintiff then terminated his employment and applied for unemployment benefits. The Federal Employment Agency then imposed a suspension period pursuant to Section 144 (1), (3) SGB III and stated in the decision that the claimant had caused the unemployment himself and through gross negligence. The claimant was subsequently unsuccessful in the first instance proceedings before the Giessen Social Court.
LSG DarmstadtThe LSG recognised the health risks of passive smoking as an important reason that precludes the imposition of a ban. The judges in Darmstadt therefore declared the judgement of the court of first instance null and void and emphasised in the grounds for the judgement that the intensity of the smoking nuisance was not the decisive factor. Rather, the decisive factor was that the non-smoker had made an emphatic attempt to assert his need for protection in a conversation with his boss prior to his dismissal and that this was refused by his superior.
Source: Darmstadt Regional Social Court
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or email us at info@mth-partner.de.