Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T19:31:45.497Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Surfer's Paradise: What the Law Says About Personal Internet Use During Working Hours

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Lars Schmidt  and
Andreas Maurer

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A survey on Internet use by employees at their workstations published by Sterling Commerce on 29 August 2000, showed that more than 60% of those employees that have access to the internet surf at least once a day for personal rather than their official business reasons. That means that every employee, on average, is online for about 3.2 hours each week — for personal reasons. This fact — according to the Sterling Report — causes a yearly loss for employers of about 104 Billion Deutsche Marks. In this calculation, costs for the connection to the Internet are not included.

Type
Research Article
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 2 , Issue 17 , 2001 , E5
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

(1) See Arbeitsgericht Wesel, Decision of 21 March 2001, reg. no. 5 Ca 4021/00, published in: NEUE JURISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT 2001 p. 2490.Google Scholar

(2) See Arbeitsgericht Frankfurt am Main, Decision of 20 March 2001, reg. no. 5 Ca 4459/00, available at http://www.jurpc.de/rechtspr/20010155.htm (last visited at 19 October 2001).Google Scholar

(3) See ERFURTER KOMMENTAR ZUM ARBEITSRECHT, Ascheid, Section 1 KUENDIGUNGSSCHUTZGESETZ (DISMISSAL PROTECTION ACT), Annotation Number 336.Google Scholar

(4) See Landesarbeitsgericht Niedersachsen, Decision of 13 January 1998, published in: NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUER ARBEITSRECHT-RECHTSPRECHUNGS REPORT 1998, p. 259 seq.Google Scholar

(5) If this trustful relationship is ruined the employer has the right to dismiss the employee instantly. (Palandt-Buergerliches Gesetzbuch, 60th ed., section 626, annotation no.: 40; see also: Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labor Court) decision of 12 August 1999, NEUE JURISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT, p. 1069, 1971 (persistant jurisdiction).Google Scholar

(6) See Bundearbeitsgericht (Federal Labor Court), Decision of 04 June 1997; published in: NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUER ARBEITSRECHT 1997, p. 1281. This FLC decision is very remarkable as it constitutes a renunciation of a former persistant jurisdiction. In former jurisdiction a dissuation was not considered mandatory even if the trusful relationship could have been re-established.Google Scholar

(7) See Bundearbeitsgericht (Federal Labor Court), Decision of 10 February 1999, published in: NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUER ARBEITSRECHT 1999, p. 708 seq.; the rules laid out related to email and telephone usages at the work place also apply with regard to private photo copies, see, e.g. the Decision of 27 March 1980, Arbeitsgericht Berlin, reg. no. 12 Ca 3/80, published in: BETRIEBS BERATER 1980, p.1105.Google Scholar

(8) See: Soergel-Kraft, preliminary remarks on section 620 German Civil Code (Beurgerliches Gesetzbuch), annotation no.: 89 et seq.Google Scholar

(9) Soellner, Grundriss des Arbeitsrechts, 12th ed., 1998, p. 304.Google Scholar