Roland Gross, born in 1954
Attorney and specialist attorney for labour law.

After his studies in Frankfurt am Main, first registered as an attorney at the Regional Court of Frankfurt/Main in 1982. Relocation to Leipzig in 1993 and registration at the Regional Court of Leipzig and Higher Regional Court of Dresden. From 1982 to 2000, partner of the regional attorney partnership of Stierstorfer, Gross, Senser-Joester (Frankfurt am Main and Leipzig). Since 2001, senior partner of the law firm of gross::attorneys in Leipzig, interrupted by a position as acting partner of Eisenbeis & Reinhardt Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, with its registered office in Erfurt. Additionally qualified as a specialist attorney for labour law in 1989. Mr. Gross mostly works on national matters, and partially works on matters involving other European countries.

A great emphasis in the legal work of Mr. Gross lies in the area of labour law, which has given rise to a concentration on appellate proceedings along with representation in collective bargaining matters. The involvement of European law is to be mentioned as an important emphasis of interest.

However, a labour law specialisation should not narrow an attorney's legal horizons, which is why, for many years, Mr. Gross has worked on matters particularly involving traffic and insurance law, along with civil law and commercial law.

Mr. Gross is vice-president and secretary of the presidency and management board of the Saxony Bar Association. He is a department leader of the legal compensation department and belongs to the management board's working groups for foreign contacts and public relations.

He is also chairman of the Saxony Professional Training Committee for Legal Secretaries. An additional emphasis of his work for the management board exists in the structuring and development of contacts with bar associations in other European countries, particularly Poland and the Czech Republic.

Roland Gross understands his honorary engagement in the management board and presidency of the bar association as, on the one hand, a strengthening of the bar in its function as a representative of justice. Civil rights, constitutional procedures and efficient legal protection would not be ensured without a strong bar. On the other hand, the engagement is also to achieve the elimination of obstacles and deficiencies that stand in the way of the efficient legal enforcement of clients and the optimisation of access to the law for persons seeking to assert rights. For more on the Saxony Bar Association, see www.rak-sachsen.de.

• German Bar Association (Deutscher Anwaltverein - DAV) - www.anwaltverein.de
• Leipzig Bar Association (Leipziger Anwaltverein) - www.anwaltverein-leipzig.de
• Labour Law Working Group in the DAV
• Traffic Law Working Group in the DAV - www.verkehrsrecht.de
• Labour Law Specialist Attorney Forum - www.ffa-arbeitsrecht.de
• Labour Law Committee of the DAV

Since 2001, Mr. Gross has been a member of the Labour Law Committee of the DAV. In the second legislative period of up to 31 Dec. 2010, he was again appointed by the president of the DAV. As a so-called “legislation committee," the Labour Law Committee is concerned with questions of attorney work in labour law related to legal policy and professional practice. This particular includes the adjudicative process of drafting laws and delivering position papers to legislative bodies. Furthermore, contacts with courts, particularly the Federal Labour Court, are maintained in order to bring to bear the concerns of attorneys involved in labour law.

Mr. Gross publishes extensively on labour law topics; among other things, he is an author and co-editor of commentaries pertaining to labour law. Moreover, he is responsible for the editorship of the technical periodical Labour Law Decisions (Arbeitsrechtliche Entscheidungen - AE).

Commentaries

Däubler/Hjort/Hummel/Wolmerath (editors)
Labour Law - Individual Labour Law with Collective Bargaining References - Commentary, therein Commenting on the Vocational Training Law and Labour Court Law by Roland Gross, 1st edition, January 2008

Gross/Thon/Ahmad/Woitaschek,
Works Council Constitution Act, Commentary in the set of Luchterhand Compact Commentaries, 1st edition, appearing April 2006

Gross/Thon/Ahmad/Woitaschek,
Works Council Constitution Act, Commentary in the set of Luchterhand Compact Commentaries, 2nd edition, appearing August 2008 (ISBN 978-3-472-07275-1)

Gliech/Gross/Seidel/Vohs,
Saxony Personnel Representation Law, Basic Commentary, Bund-Verlag, 2nd edition 2003 $row_output [title] Further information for the publication "Works Council Constitution Act" (165 KB) of essays, commemorative publication articles, etc.

Roland Gross: Appeal Against Denial of Leave to Appeal - the Compelled Access to the Federal Labour Court, Commemorative Publication on the 25th Year of the Labour Law Working Group of the German Bar Association, Deutscher Anwaltverlag 2006, page 325 et seq.

Leschnik/Gross: Appeal Against Denial of Leave to Appeal - An Insupportableness in the Attorney Sense, in Yearbook of Labour Law, volume 39-2002, edited by Dr. Hellmut Wißmann, president of the Federal Labour Court, Berlin 2002

On 29 May 2003 in Freiburg, Roland Gross reported at the 54th Deutscher Anwaltstag (Annual Meeting of German Lawyers) on the topic of "Reorganisation of Access to the Federal Labour Court?" (Anwaltsblatt 2003, 487)

Roland Gross, Community Law Issues with the 5th Innovation Module of the Hartz Commission, AE 1/2003, XII et seq.

Additional publications

Roland Gross, On the Road to Mutually Better Understanding and on the European Bar, article in the commemorative publication "15 Years of the Refounding of the Saxony Bar Association" of 23 Nov. 2005, edited by the Saxony Bar Association

Roland Gross and Daniel Zintl, "Qualified Person" in the German Pharmaceuticals Act After the 14th AMG Amendment, www.arzneimittel-und-recht.de

Roland Gross, "The Personal Appearance of the Party," newsletter of the Traffic Law Working Group of the German Bar Association, Issue 4/2004, 109
 
Roland Gross, Litigation Value Jurisprudence of the Saxony Higher Labour Court upon Change Terminations, AE 2004, 10 and AE 2004, 230
 
Roland Gross, "New Access to the Federal Labour Court"

AGENDA 2010 in Labour Law

Act on the Reforms in the Labour Market and Changes to Termination Rights and the Working Hours Act as of 1 January 2004.

In its meeting of 13 March 2003, the Labour Law Committee of the DAV, to which Mr. Gross belongs, developed a proposal to amend the protection against termination right for terminations caused by operations and conduct. This proposal triggered animated discussions. Together with Mr. Ulrich Fischer, Frankfurt am Main, Mr. Gross composed a side note for this. With a further click, you can find the position paper of the Labour Law Committee of the DAV and the side note "Across Party Line Loyalty, Heresy and Termination Protection - or: How Much Discussion the Country Tolerates." We are quite interested in your position, which you can transmit to us by email at ragross@advo-gross.de .

An attorney confronts the following on almost a daily basis: he is consulted by a client whose employment agreement was terminated. In the initial consultation, it appears that a legal action would be promising. However, the costs of court proceedings (court costs and attorney fees) are immense and, in view of the impending loss of wages based on the loss of the job, whether the cost risk of a lawsuit can be engaged must be given great consideration.

Effective legal protection seems expensive - there are not only attorney fees, but also, above all, the prepayment of court costs and also the possible costs of experts. Other considerations are whether costs that have been deployed will be reimbursed upon the conclusion or, upon losing the proceedings, whether the costs of the opposing party are also to be borne. Not infrequently, this leads to not pursuing claims or not engaging in appellate proceedings - the parties are simply out of breath.

A party who has promptly entered into a legal expenses insurance policy can assert rights unencumbered of such cost risks. Such a policy assumes consulting costs, along with procedural costs for out-of-court and court representation. In addition to court costs and costs for experts, such a policy particularly also includes attorney fees and costs that are to be reimbursed to the opposing party, depending on the circumstances. However, with a qualifying period of at least 3 months, the insurance agreement must be entered into prior to the occurrence of the insured event and the first premium must be paid. Thus, it is not sufficient to enter into a legal expenses insurance policy at the last moment (if, for example, a termination emerges).

With all legal expenses insurance agreements, the free selection of an attorney remains in effect; the person seeking to assert rights can thus call on an attorney that he trusts, and even relevantly experienced specialist attorneys.

Since legal expenses insurance policies also provide compensation for the costs of out-of-court attorney consultation and representation, with professional attorney assistance, a solution that is fair to all interests can be attempted at an early stage. In such a way, many disputes no longer need to be submitted before a court.

Specialised litigation financing entities

Litigation is occasionally expensive; it results in not only attorney costs, but court costs, possible costs of experts, etc. Therefore, it can be quite sensible to be safeguarded by a legal expenses insurance policy or a federation/trade union. Nevertheless, there are still cases of secured claims that cannot be pursued, because the litigation costs do not appear to be able to be financed. As such, in the area of small to medium-sized enterprises or, for example, for inheritance disputes, claims are sometimes not pursued. Now, a few so-called "specialised litigation financing entities" have discovered this need, and they offer to finance litigation against a participation in the recovered proceeds of approximately 20-30%. A typical prerequisite is that the claim amount to at least 51,129.18. EUR By now, there are several vendors. We would be happy to help you find litigation financing.

Risk shifting - discussion of the decision of the Federal Labour Court of 5 Sept. 2002 (8 AZR 620/01)

The Federal Labour Court made a decision once again. On 5 Sept. 2002, it took up the problem of the compensation reclaim of a deputy head mistress at a primary school, which was originally classified into Compensation Group II a BAT-O. The Free State of Saxony had represented the view that, based on the decrease of the numbers of students, the colleague is solely entitled to a classification in Compensation Group III along with and official bonus. It raised a compensation reclaim, even for compensation payments that were already made. Against this, the colleague brought suit with the legal protection of the GEW.

The Federal Labour Court largely rejected the complaint. In accordance with many years of case law, it is the case that a public employer would never like to pay its employees more than that to which it is obligated to pay under a collective bargaining agreement. This corresponds to the peculiarity of public service; it may be regretted or not.

However, this starting point is in any event problematic, in as much as an employee of public service may never believe what the employer has communicated to him as the classification, because it could turn out that the employer erred - then, according to the case law of Federal Labour Court, it could correct the classification to the detriment the employee. Employees are at their mercy without protection. Thus, for employees of public service, the planning of larger expenditures and the overall standard of living dangle on a string.

However, an exception applies - if an employee is consciously assured a classification over the collective bargaining scale and he can prove that this occurred consciously, then he can rely on that. However, according to the case law of Federal Labour Court, compensation notices and even amendment agreements are only declarations without operative importance; they can be unilaterally amended at any time by the employer, if it considers the classification wrong.

In the discussion decision of 5 Sept. 2002, there was a further point - until now, the risk that it cannot make available sufficient correspondingly high-quality work was exclusively borne by employers. The employees maintained their claims for compensation without diminishment. This arises from a "theory of sphere," according to which it lies in the sphere of the employer, as it controls work.

It is now to be different if the numbers of students decreases. As generally known, this can be based on different factors; one naturally thinks of the decline in the birthrate, but the allocation of pupils to schools is a substantial factor on which the head mistress and her deputy generally have no influence. Following a decision of the 4th Chamber of 7 Nov. 2001, the 8th Chamber of the Federal Labour Court now says that the decline in students that is relevant for classification also legitimises the retroactive classification of the deputy head mistress and/or the head mistress.

This appears as an entirely substantial cut into the employee position - employees suddenly have to bear a risk on which they have no influence. They could still assert the claim only if the employer had brought about the occurrence of the negative condition against good faith (§ 162 of the German Commercial Code). One cannot avoid the determination that such decision represents a harsh defeat and, in a dangerous way, opens the door for a misalignment of traditional employer risks on employees.

Human Rights and Civil Rights in the German Transition

Roland Gross: Human Rights and Civil Rights in the German Transition, lecture before a symposium on the occasion of 50th Anniversary of the promulgation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (publication of the Community for Human Rights in the Free State of Saxony, GMS Publication Series, volume 7)

The Attorney Request - No Path to Money

Roland Gross: The Attorney Request - No Path to Money, (attorney fees special of 2001, 124)