AD 2026 No. 32 – Was the scope of the notice sufficiently clear?

A trade union gave notice to an employers’ organisation of a solidarity action in the form of a blockade against all waste handling associated with a company, at eleven specified addresses where the company carried out its operations. The dispute centred on whether the scope of the industrial action was unclear and whether the trade union had therefore breached Section 45 of the Co-determination Act. The court found that the notice was not unclear with regard to the scope of the industrial action announced, and the claim was dismissed.

Background:

The employers’ association argued that the trade union’s notice was unclear regarding the scope of the industrial action announced. It was not possible to determine from the notice which of the employers’ association’s more than 4,500 member companies were affected or at which member companies the blockade was to be implemented. The industrial action was carried out despite the employers’ association’s objections regarding the lack of clarity. The employers’ association therefore alleged a breach of Section 45 of the Co-determination Act and claimed general damages.

The trade union considered that the notice contained all the required information, including regarding the scope of the industrial action. The union argued that the notice was drafted in the manner customary in the labour market when a trade union wishes to block all companies that are members of an employers’ organisation, and emphasised that the scope was clearly indicated by the inclusion of the addresses.

The Labour Court’s assessment:

The Labour Court first established that a fundamental prerequisite for a notice to be considered to contain sufficient information regarding the scope of industrial action is that the party against whom the notice is directed must be able to ascertain the scope of the notice and determine which employees are affected by it, and that the work tasks affected by the notice should be specified.

Since the wording of the notice made it clear that it was directed at all member companies of the employers’ association (bound by certain specified collective agreements), the notice was not ambiguous as to which member companies were covered. It also emerged from the oral evidence that the employers’ association had understood this. The fact that it was not immediately apparent from the notice which member companies were responsible for waste management at the time the notice was issued did not affect the assessment. Nor was the notice unclear as to which employees were covered, since the wording of the notice made it clear that members of the employees’ organisation employed by the specified member companies were not to be involved in waste management at the addresses in question. Finally, the Labour Court found that the work tasks concerned were not ambiguously specified either, particularly given that the industrial action had in fact been respected for just over two years (with only a few exceptions).

In summary, the Labour Court found that the notice was not unclear with regard to the scope of the industrial action announced. The employers’ association’s claim was therefore dismissed.

Setterwalls’ comment:

The judgment clarifies that a notice of a blockade directed at all member companies of an employers’ organisation is not unclear merely because individual companies are not named. The decisive factor is that the other party can grasp the scope of the notice. The judgment provides welcome guidance on where the line is drawn for sufficient clarity.