Facts
The plaintiff had been employed as a machine operator in the rolling mill of the defendant since October 1983. As part of a restructuring, the rolling mill was closed at the end of March 2002, and the plaintiff was terminated as of March 31, 2002. On January 30, 2002, a social plan was agreed between the defendant and the responsible employee representation bodies.
The plaintiff asserted claims based on this social plan. The lower instances affirmed his claim for termination compensation under Section 17.1 of the social plan. The defendant appealed against this judgment.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the lower instances. It stated that the social plan was agreed in the form of a company regulation and is therefore to be treated like a collective employment agreement. The normative provisions contained therein must therefore be interpreted like a law.
According to the wording of Section 17.1 of the social plan, employees who are not granted early retirement and who have not been dismissed for misconduct are entitled to termination compensation. The plaintiff met these requirements, so he is entitled to the termination compensation.
The Federal Supreme Court did not see a gap in the social plan that would justify…