of the workplace, and the employees as his subordinated Gefolgschaft.All actors were incorporated into the German labour front, however without the power to influence the level of wages and terms of work, which instead was vested in the public “Treuhänder der Arbeit”.Thus the employer’s personal supremacy as the criteria of a labour relationship was transformed into a community, organised according to a “Fürhrerprinzip”, which was hard or even impossible to make compatible with the rules of the BGB, since the code was primarily founded on views of individualism and property law. The upgrading of Fürsorge- and Treuepflicht, however, was based less on the legislation of 1934 than on the political directives and the scholarly writings which prescribed that the employment relationship was a Gemeinschaft, from which the mutual duty of fidelity was an “outflow”.330 Although the contractual view on the employment relationship survived, it was in general characterised as a very special category of private law, belonging to the law of persons (“ein personrechtlichesVerhalten”).The two most prominent authors of German labour law textbooks, Hueck and Nipperdey wrote that there was simply no longer any room for characterising the employment relationship as a contract belonging to the law of obligations.331 Some scholars went even further, among themWolfgang Siebert, who characterised the establishment of the National Labour Act in 1934 as a “fight against the BGB’s contract of employment” and claimed that the exclusive legal foundation of the duties and rights of the employment relationship was the established order within the enterprise as such.332 Apparently, the notion of das Tatbestand showed strong vitality. p a r t i v, c h a p t e r 6 162 330 Hueck 1938, pp. 65, 70; Nipperdey 1937, pp. 142-143 in Münchener Handbuch zum Arbeitsrecht 1992, pp. 31-32. 331 “…für die Auffassung des Arbeitsverhältnisses als eines schuldrechtlichenVertrags schlechterdings kein Raum mehr”.Hueck et. al. 1943, section2,RdNr.16;Münchener Handbuch zum Arbeitsrecht 1992, pp.814-815;Veneziani 1986, p.66; Klatt 1990, pp.260-295, 352-353. 332 Siebert 1935, pp. 42, 53, 94.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=