My name is Rupay Dahm,
a specialist solicitor in labour law and I am representing
a case against 36 Stage XL GmbH.
They provide event technology,
are involved in major concerts such as Marilyn Manson
they do the behind-the-scenes work,
the so-called stage hands.
And the case I’m representing.
So the problem is,
they’re only ever hired on a daily basis
and then, if they have twenty assignments a year,
that makes twenty fixed-term contracts they have.
And in between, and even during the contract
you are not entitled to continued pay if you are ill.
You have no entitlement to holiday leave,
that is, to paid holiday leave.
This is an employment relationship like in the German Empire,
where I simply have no protection and that is the problem.
The employer invokes
a social law construct of ‘non-permanent employment’.
In reality, these are zero-hours contracts.
So I have a framework contract,
where, in principle,
I have zero hours of regular working time,
so I don’t have any regular working hours,
but people are always booked for individual assignments.
And the employer’s argument is that they can, after all, turn down jobs.
That means it’s entirely voluntary
and that’s why
there isn’t one.
So, according to
the employer’s view
there is no permanent employment relationship,
even though people may work there for a year or two years,
and carry out tasks that constitute a permanent role.
So, just like in any other temporary employment agency
or events or catering or something like that.
So, as is always the case in the industry, you have different events
and it’s not a nine-to-five job.
The employer exploits a grey area because they say,
he doesn’t actually oblige people to take on certain shifts,
but that it’s voluntary. And that’s a scam,
we’ve seen it before with all those
bike couriers or
those food delivery people,
where it all works via an app,
where they can accept or decline jobs.
And ue to this freedom toi decline the key feature that typically
exists in an employment relationship, that I receive instructions from the employer,
- that’s simply bypassed.
And because of that, they act as if it weren’t an employment relationship.
So at least not between assignments,
and the employer takes advantage of that,
to save costs and to keep people
in such a state of absolute uncertainty.
And the case law on this, is lagging behind.
So this is just
a difficult area of law.
And the employer exploits this uncertainty,
which, in my view, is illegal,
is that time and again these are temporary contracts,
which, however, do not have any justification for being temporary
That means, actually, they ought to be on permanent contracts.
But they aren’t.
And that just goes to show
the difference compared to other employers,
who work in a similar way,
but who have much better working conditions.
That they hire people on a permanent basis.
In any traditional temp agency, where you do catering jobs or the like,
you basically have a permanent position with a working time account
with, for example, on-call work or the like,
where you can simply accept or decline assignments.
But you have a basic income
and you are permanently covered by social security; you have holidays,
holiday entitlement and continued pay in the event of illness, etc., so simply
that basic social security, which under employment law
you’re actually supposed to have.
And with Stage XL, that’s not the case,
they simply avoid that through this odd contract structure,
which, however, actually constitute institutional abuse of the law.
So because they keep hiring people of these temporary contracts,
for a task that is, however, a permanent function of the company,
that is actually not permitted.
I don’t see politicians doing anything about it,
that these working conditions at food delivery companies
or for all these precarious workers,
that they’re doing anything about it.
The trade unions are trying to do something about it,
but it’s just very difficult to organise people.
It’s also hardly possible,
you can’t exactly set up a works council,
because people are only ever employed for a few days.
That is, of course, also a clever strategy,
to avoid co-determination .
That’s why it’s incredibly difficult to get to grips with it,
and politicians are just standing by and doing nothing.
So I don’t see any visible improvements there.
I’m curious to see what the labour court has to say about this.
From our point of view, this is inadmissible and constitutes
an institutional abuse of the law,
Because
because this type of time limit
is actually not permissible.
I am curious to see what the labour court will say about this.