Search

The article describes a legal dispute between a private job placement company and the Federal Employment Agency. The company is demanding a placement fee of 1,000 euros for the placement of a job seeker. The Federal Agency refuses to pay because no wages were paid within a period of five days. The Social Court has ruled that the company is entitled to the fee as the conditions were met. The plaintiff has no claim to the desired placement fee according to § 45 SGB III. The Social Court wrongly dismissed the lawsuit. The requirements for the private job placement agency's claim for payment against the defendant are not met. Among other things, there is a lack of a six-week duration of the employment relationship. Although the plaintiff had a valid placement voucher and was authorized, she is not entitled to the fee. The present text deals with a legal dispute over the validity of a written placement contract between the plaintiff, Regio Personalagentur GmbH, and the intervenor. It is pointed out that a placement contract between a job placement agency and a job seeker requires written form according to § 296 para. 1 sentence 1 SGB III. If the written form is not complied with, the agreement on the payment of the fee is invalid. The amendment to the law on March 27, 2002 introduced the requirement of written form to protect job seekers from exploitation. In the present case, it was determined that there is no valid written placement contract between the parties. The placement contract does not clearly specify who the contractual partner of the private job placement agency is. The Regio Group is mentioned as the contractual partner, but it is unclear who on the side of the agency is the contractual partner. The Regio Group is not a legal entity and consists of various companies that are not legally consolidated under the umbrella of the Regio Group. It is not apparent that the plaintiff, and not the Regio Group, should be the contractual partner for the placement assignment. The contractual provision on data protection also does not provide any information about who the contractor should be. It is important that the client can clearly identify who their contractual partner is. The placement contract cannot be cured through § 141 BGB, as the public law provisions of the SGB III take precedence. [Extracted from the article]