Summary:

I.
The applicants are large businesses who were not bound by any collective agreements. They challenged labour court decisions that allowed for strike action organised by a trade union on the applicants’ premises on numerous occasions since 2014/2015. In these cases, employees and trade union representatives gathered on each business’s parking lot just before shifts normally start. The lots are very large, with signs indicating that they are private property. They are located directly in front of the main entrance that can only be accessed via the parking lot, and they are used by most employees due to the businesses’ remote location.

The applicants opposed such strike action, relying on their rights as property owners. The Federal Labour Court balanced the conflicting fundamental rights positions and concluded that the strike action must be tolerated.

II.

Based on the considerations below, the Federal Constitutional Court held the constitutional complaints to be unfounded. The decisions by the labour courts are not objectionable under constitutional law.

The challenged decisions by the Labour Courts concern a legal dispute between private parties. In such disputes, the fundamental rights of the Basic Law can have an indirect horizontal effect (mittelbare Drittwirkung). They permeate into legal relationships under private law, which is why the ordinary courts must give effect to fundamental rights in their interpretation of ordinary law.

The Federal Labour Court considered the applicants’ rights as property owners. It correctly relied on the guarantee of private property under Article 14.1 of the Basic Law and the freedom of action of businesses protected under Article 12.1 of the Basic Law. It was also correct not to consider a negative freedom of labour coalitions under Article 9.3 of the Basic Law in favour of the applicants. This freedom encompasses the right not to form, and to leave or not to join a labour coalition, and in the present case, the action taken by the trade union was not aimed at getting the businesses to join any association. Concluding an agreement does not require such membership. Beyond that, the negative freedom of labour coalitions does not encompass the right to be spared any and all action taken by such a coalition.

Furthermore, the Federal Labour Court was right to take into account Article 9.3 of the Basic Law for the benefit of the trade union. The right to free collective bargaining protected by Article 9.3 extends to the conclusion of collective agreements, and in particular to industrial action including a strike.

Finally, the conflict between property rights and the freedom of action of businesses as employers on the one hand and the trade union’s freedom of labour coalitions on the other hand was resolved by the Federal Labour Court in a tenable manner. It considered whether the trade union was able to exercise its fundamental rights under Article 9.3 of the Basic Law at all and if there were other ways in which strike action could be taken. In doing so, the Federal Labour Court took into account the circumstances at the specific location, including the size and location of the lot, concluding that employees who are willing to work can only be addressed on the matter of industrial action on the business’s parking lot; this is not objectionable under constitutional law. The Federal Labour Court did not one-sidedly privilege the trade union’s fundamental rights; namely, the applicants’ property rights were not set aside entirely.