The German employees of the Ryanair subsidiary Malta Air continue to receive short-time work benefits. The State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia decided that the Federal Employment Agency remains temporarily bound by the original decision, with which the fulfilled performance requirements were recognized.

Originally, the German flight attendants and pilots of Malta Air were granted short-time work. This was also determined by the employment office by means of a notice. Only a few weeks later this was withdrawn and short-time working was rejected. The unions and company management jointly opposed this decision in public. Malta Air went to court.

This dealt with the challenge under file number “L 20 AL 109/20 B ER”. The Federal Employment Agency was unable to conclusively explain the original approval and subsequent rejection. The fact that there is no administration in Germany is also irrelevant to the court. The employment office subsequently objected that Malta Air had no operations in Germany. This would not have been apparent in the original application and would only have been recognized later. Malta Air employees stationed in Germany pay their taxes and social security contributions in Germany.

The matter is now in the second judicial instance, because the social court in Cologne determined that the objection has a suspensive effect and that the short-time allowance for the Malta Air employees is still to be paid for the time being. On the other hand, the Federal Employment Agency took an appeal, so that the case landed before the State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia. However, this confirmed the decision of the lower court.

The legal one writes about the judgment Specialist portal Beck Aktuell as follows: "According to the LSG, the respondent could not invoke the possible lack of operational requirements within the meaning of Section 97 SGB III. Because the applicant did not describe any inaccurate facts in its report. In this respect, the information in the application form cannot be used alone. There the applicant stated a uniform operation in Germany for all locations, stating the seat of their payroll office. The collective agreement for the introduction of short-time work and the notification of lost work were signed by her in Malta. The name of the applicant and the correspondence already indicated a foreign connection, which would have given rise to an in-depth examination - which was neglected by the defendant. "