Facts

Parties:

  • Appellant: [A.] , represented by attorney Hans Luginbühl
  • Respondent: Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications (DETEC), Secretariat-General, Legal Service, 3003 Bern

Facts:

[A.] has been working at the DETEC Secretariat-General since 2014 and had part-time teaching activities. He fulfilled his working hours at the DETEC during his teaching activities, which led to irregularities. The DETEC terminated the employment relationship due to breaches of duty of loyalty. The Federal Administrative Court partially confirmed the termination and reduced the negative time balance from 306.32 to 284.83 hours.

Main issue: The lawfulness of the termination and the amount of the negative time balance.

Considerations

The contested decision of the Federal Administrative Court concerns a public-law employment relationship and is therefore admissible. The Federal Supreme Court reviews the correct application of federal law and can correct the findings of fact of the lower court if they are obviously incorrect or based on a violation of the law.

At issue is the conformity of the lower court's determination of a negative time balance of 284.83 hours and the confirmation of the ordinary termination of October 22, 2018. Furthermore, it is to be examined whether the lower court rightly denied the appellant's claim for compensation and only granted him a reduced party compensation of CHF 500.-.

The lower court considered that the appellant had worked for the respondent during his part-time employment as a lecturer. He had recorded the performance he provided during teaching hours as working time, which violated the obligations of the employee under Art. 10 para. 3 lit. a FPA. From January 1, 2018, the appellant had not made any entries, although he should have used ten free days in accordance with the agreement. The termination was therefore lawful and is considered to be culpable within the meaning of Art. 31 para. 1 lit. a FPersO.

The lower court's assessment is based on a thorough examination of the facts and the law. The appellant's objections to the lower court's findings of fact largely amount to appellate criticism and otherwise are limited to a presentation of his own point of view. The lower court did not violate federal law by protecting the disloyal and abusive behavior of the DETEC Secretariat-General.

The absence of a formal warning does not violate any procedural…