By Philip Kaleta, WirtschaftsWoche, 11 November 2024
Prosthetics manufacturer Ottobock attempts to terminate a works council member, sends registered letters to union representatives, and now even threatens legal action against the head of IG Metall.
One early evening in July, Christoph Melcher (name changed) sits at his kitchen table after work preparing dinner. His wife, who works for the Lower Saxony prosthetics manufacturer Ottobock, is away. Shortly before eight, the doorbell rings, and a courier delivers a registered letter. Melcher is perplexed. The envelope bears Ottobock’s name and is addressed to his wife. He fears the worst: a termination notice.
His wife is a union representative at the company, and numerous employees consistently report that management’s attitude toward the works council and union representatives is strained. Is this the breaking point? He frantically calls his wife, who permits him to open the letter. In strict legal German, the company clarifies what Melcher’s wife can and cannot do as a union representative.
Melcher interprets the letter as a threat. Why else would the company send such a letter by registered mail, when his wife had been part of the union representatives’ body for months? Why not have such a conversation at work? Melcher picks up the phone again and urges his wife to leave the union representatives’ body. His wife remained a union representative. However, the letter leaves its mark - the Melchers feel intimidated.
When asked why Ottobock’s management sends such letters by registered mail, a company spokesperson responds: “This approach was chosen following a personal conversation between our CEO and two union representatives to ensure all union representatives had access to the information.”
Addressing claims that employees and union representatives feel intimidated and questions about the climate between company management and employee representatives, the spokesperson counters: “This allegation is unknown to us. It is also unfounded. On the contrary: we have received numerous complaints from employees about IG Metall representatives’ recruitment practices. Every employer has duties of care that apply to all employees. When employees approach management or HR reporting disruptions, it is the employer’s duty to respond.”
Ottobock attempts to terminate a works council member
The registered letters are just one example of how Ottobock’s management deals with employee representatives. And it’s not just the union representatives.
On Thursday, a special case was heard at the Göttingen District Court. Ottobock wants to enforce the termination of a works council member. Management accuses the employee representative of granting an IG Metall union officer access to the SuitX area, thereby violating confidentiality obligations. This is stated in a court press release. SuitX is a company division specializing in the development, production, and distribution of exoskeletons.
Specifically, according to the court’s press release, the works council member “had coffee with the union officer in June 2024 in the SuitX area and discussed exoskeletons and a planned restructuring measure in this area.”
For the termination of a works council member, the consent of all employees is required, which Ottobock’s management did not receive. Hence the court proceedings. Through such proceedings, employers can have the court replace the works council’s withheld consent.
Ottobock announces legal action
IG Metall dismisses management’s allegations as baseless when asked. The IG Metall union officer - and the union itself - seems to have particularly irritated Ottobock’s owner Hans Georg Näder. His presence on and around company premises apparently disturbed the prosthetics manufacturer so much that they instructed their legal department to write a letter directly to IG Metall’s First Chairwoman, Christiane Benner.
In it, Ottobock’s lawyers question the union officer’s legitimacy and demand Benner explain it. The lawyers state that the officer repeatedly accessed Ottobock’s premises in Duderstadt and Göttingen facilities. Ottobock argues in the letter that visits required prior registration - and they are now examining whether “this behavior constitutes criminal trespass.”
The lawyers then demand IG Metall chief Benner “ensure that Mr. Köppe makes no further attempts to enter Ottobock group premises.” They will deny the officer access to the premises until all open questions are resolved.
Will not negotiate with anyone but the head of IG Metall Union
Ottobock employees say privately that for the management team led by the owner Hans Georg Näder, no contact person below the First Chairwoman of Germany’s largest union would suffice. Within IG Metall, the letter is seen as a badge of honor for the regional officer who has management so agitated.
When asked why Ottobock’s management wrote directly to the union chief, a company spokesperson responds: “The scope of Mr. Köppe’s appointment was unclear and was clarified through the IG Metall board’s lawyers.”
Note: This article first appeared on November 8, 2024, in WirtschaftsWoche. We are showing it again due to high reader interest.