Düsseldorf Regional Labour Court, 25.10.2017, Ref.: 7 Sa 995/16
In accordance with Section 22 of the Minimum Wage Act, this applies to employees. Interns within the meaning of Section 26 of the Vocational Training Act are deemed to be employees within the meaning of this Act, unless they are required to complete an internship on the basis of a school law provision, a training regulation, a higher education law provision or as part of training at a vocational academy regulated by law, are doing an internship of up to three months as an orientation for vocational training or for taking up a course of study, are doing an internship of up to three months to accompany vocational training or higher education if they have not previously had such an internship with the same training provider, or are participating in an introductory training programme pursuant to Section 54a of the Third Book of the German Social Code or in a vocational training preparation programme pursuant to Sections 68 to 70 of the Vocational Training Act.
Irrespective of the name of the legal relationship, a trainee is a person who, according to the actual structure and implementation of the contractual relationship, undergoes a specific company activity for a limited period of time in order to acquire practical knowledge and experience in preparation for a professional activity, without this being vocational training within the meaning of the Vocational Training Act or comparable practical training.
In the following case, the Düsseldorf Regional Labour Court clarifies that the permissible duration of three months of an internship is not exceeded if the parties agree on several periods of time that do not exceed the duration of three months. This applies in any case if the agreement is made at the request and in the interest of the intern. The period of interruption is not to be taken into account when calculating the three-month period, with the result that a payment obligation does not arise after the expiry of three calendar months.
Initiation of Legal Proceedings
In this case, the plaintiff sued for payment of minimum wage for an internship she completed at a riding centre operated by the defendant. The plaintiff worked as an intern between October 2015 and January 2016, but did not receive any remuneration and subsequently demanded payment of 6,630 euros, citing the German Minimum Wage Act (MiLoG). The defendant argued that this was a voluntary and unpaid internship that served as professional orientation.
Course of the internship
The plaintiff completed the internship at the defendant's riding centre, during which she took on various tasks in connection with the care and supervision of the horses. The internship began on 6 October 2015 and ended on 25 January 2016. During this time, the plaintiff took agreed leave, interrupted the internship and also completed trial days with other employers. She was also able to stay at the riding centre free of charge. The plaintiff claimed that she worked six days a week, daily between 6.30 am and 7 pm. She saw herself as a worker, as she was treated like a regular employee.
Judgement of the labour court
The labour court ruled in favour of the plaintiff and awarded her a minimum wage of EUR 5,491. It found that the plaintiff was to be classified as an employee within the meaning of the Minimum Wage Act. The court pointed out that the internship lasted longer than three months and was therefore no longer to be regarded as an orientation internship within the meaning of Section 22 (1) No. 2 MiLoG. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to the minimum wage from the first day of the internship. However, the 780 working hours stated by the plaintiff were partially reduced as she had not sufficiently explained the exact working hours.
Appeal before the regional labour court
The defendant appealed against the judgement and argued that the internship served as an orientation for the profession of horse manager and was agreed free of charge. It emphasised that the plaintiff was free to decide whether and when she wanted to take part in the daily work routine. In addition, the claimant had received daily riding lessons. The internship had also been interrupted by the holiday and the trial days, which meant that the total duration of three months had not been exceeded.
State Labor Court’s decision
The Düsseldorf Regional Labour Court ruled that the defendant's appeal was admissible and well-founded. The plaintiff did not fall under the scope of application of the Minimum Wage Act, as it was an orientation internship within the meaning of Section 22 (1) No. 2 MiLoG. The duration of the internship of three months had not been exceeded, as the internship was interrupted by the holiday and the trial days. The court found that the internship focussed on the acquisition of practical knowledge and did not constitute an employment relationship. The claim was therefore dismissed.
Conclusion
The Regional Labour Court ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to minimum wage as the internship served as professional orientation and the three-month limit was not exceeded. Although the plaintiff undertook practical work, the court clarified that the activity was mainly for the purpose of gaining experience and was therefore to be categorised as an orientation internship.
Source: Düsseldorf Regional Labor Court
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, please feel free to call us at 0221 - 80187670 or send us an email at or send an email to info@mth-partner.de info@mth-partner.de