Facts
The plaintiff [A.] had been working for the defendant [X. AG] , which is active in both the construction and plastering trades, since March 1990. On 31 October 1997, the defendant terminated the employment relationship due to lack of work, effective at the end of 1997. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit, as he was of the opinion that the Framework Agreement for the Painting and Plastering Trade and not the National Collective Labour Agreement for the Swiss Construction Industry (LMV) had been applicable to his employment relationship. The lower courts had affirmed the applicability of the LMV, but the Federal Supreme Court overturned this decision.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court stated that in the case of a conflict between two industry-wide collective agreements, it must first be examined whether the scopes of application of the two agreements are actually congruent. The decisive criterion for assignment is the type of activity that characterises the business or the independent business unit, and not the company as an economic entity. The principle of collective bargaining unity therefore does not apply strictly to the entire company, but only to the independent business or business unit.
In the present case, the Cantonal Court had…