Facts
[B.], born in 1992, completed an apprenticeship as a building draftsman at C. AG, but failed the final apprenticeship examination in the summer of 2012. From September 24, 2012, he was employed as a building draftsman intern with an 80% workload at the architectural firm [D.], with a contract stipulating that [B.] would retake the final apprenticeship examination as a building draftsman the following year and attend vocational school as a repeater during this time. The Family Compensation Fund Employer Basel initially denied the father, A.'s, claim for training allowances for his son from August 1, 2012.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court decided that the building draftsman internship that began on September 24, 2012 is to be considered as training and therefore establishes the respondent's entitlement to a training allowance. Although an apprenticeship relationship is generally terminated upon expiration of the agreed duration, it can be considered a consistent and meaningful goal with regard to later career and further training opportunities to successfully complete the training undertaken with the acquisition of the proficiency certificate. For this, a re-examination is required, for which an intensive practical employment in a company in the industry with renewed vocational school instruction to achieve the goal is not only appropriate, but factually required.
The Federal Supreme Court found that the employment contract with the architectural firm [D.], titled as an internship, is oriented towards a regular apprenticeship both…