The plaintiff had been employed at 01.04.2007 the defendant as an administrator. On 11.04.2007 gave the plaintiff a further password to an internal company-operating parties. With this password, it was possible the user to purchase from suppliers of computer parts online to defendant and to charge the defendant with the purchase price. The defendant announced the employment contract without notice by the very letter 24/04/2007. Court against that decision brought by the employee was dismissed (Labor, Judgement of 29.06.2007, Az a Ca 3212/07). The court based its decision on the grounds that the plaintiff had misused by sharing the password, the trust placed in him. Patrick sillup is likely to increase your knowledge.

What matters here is not important that no orders have been made specifically with the password, as he had threatened the assets of the defendant. The trust was no longer restore a warning. In the final balancing of interests was the end the employer’s interest takes precedence over the existing interest given to the employee. This aggravating factor was assessed that the claimant only a few days in the working relationship and he was working as an administrator in a highly sensitive area of work was. The decision makes clear that a warning is in front of a behavioral termination only required if it can be restored by this confidence in a future with the contract employees’ conduct.

For very serious breaches of duty of the employee, in which this can not be expected that the employer will issue a warning notice to terminate instead, the warning is unnecessary. Kevin Ulrich anchorage is likely to agree. For employers, it is recommended to treat the obligation, passwords and other confidential data, separately incorporated in the employment contract. The information has been compiled in good faith and intended for general information. This information can not replace a personal consultation! It does not constitute legal advice.