How Much Does It Cost To Call A Ambulance

BAG: can Muslim workers claim to alcohol-free workplace have

Muslim employees may, under certain circumstances be entitled to refuse to work with alcoholic beverages, without them, this may be interpreted as a refusal to work.
may therefore be terminated them in such cases only because of persistent refusal to work if the employer can provide them as part of the operational organization to assign no other activity can do without getting into conflict with their religion. Employees must in such a case, of course, unsubstantiated statements, to see what activities they are prevented on religious grounds to consider that the employer the existence of "non-alcoholic" activity.


The case:
of his faith and practicing Muslim plaintiff was employed since 1994 in the department store of the defendant, and is initially in the car wash and later, according to employment as a shop assistance "in the beverage industry, which remained in the previous proceedings, whether there already had to deal with alcoholic beverages and would have had to deal.
2007 was transferred to the fresh produce department, but it turned out by a number of diseases, that the low temperatures were in the fresh produce area, the cause of his frequent absences. Thereupon, the defendant stated in again to work in the beverage department.

The plaintiff refused to make this arrangement episode, and relied on his faith, which prohibits him jeweden use of alcohol. After several unsuccessful calls, the defendant announced the employment relationship without notice and very tidy as a precaution on time.

made with the dismissal action brought by the plaintiff claims that his re-transfer is contrary to the beverage department against his fundamental right to freedom of religion under Article 4 of the Constitution. The Qur'an prohibits any use of alcohol.
The defendant had not demonstrated that they could not use him in an area where he could work without a religious conflict.
The plaintiff failed before the Labour Court, the LAG firmly placed the ineffectiveness of the extraordinary dismissal, but held the notice of dismissal is justified. The
aside the decision of the BAG and referred the case back to the LAG.


The reasons:
It could yet be a final decision on whether the refusal of the plaintiff to work in the beverage department, a notice

principle could justify such a refusal a worker's a worker to perform a task that is part of the contractual obligations, even justify a termination if it is done for religious reasons. The prerequisite for this is, however, that no obvious alternative employment opportunities are given.

workers have in such a case, the employers like to inform you what exactly the religious reasons, and explain what work they could not do for religious reasons.
If the possibility of contractual employment, which fell to the religious restrictions into account, should the employee about the employee such work would be assigned ..

stand by these principles in the dispute not yet clear whether the refusal to work to justify a dismissal of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had a "shop help" in the retail market grds. also expect the allocation of such work requiring the use of alcohol. His statements can not yet see clearly enough what activities it prohibits his religious beliefs. Accordingly, it can not yet conclusively determined whether the defendant has been able to transfer to the plaintiff other jobs.

(BAG 02.24.2011, 2 AZR 636/09)