Masterflex AG, Gelsenkirchen - December 30, 2009
A report about our company has appeared on the website of SPIEGEL, giving the impression that Masterflex AG has parted company with a former senior employee because the latter wanted to reduce his working hours to 30 while on parental leave.
These allegations and the impression created by the report that Masterflex AG does not pay attention to the interests of its employees or does so only insufficiently are demonstrably incorrect! The report presents the true facts in an incomplete, misleading and, in part, apparently even against better knowledge and deliberately incorrect manner.
Masterflex AG would like to clarify the following with regard to the main points:
The employee in question had been hired to manage and develop a very specific project - the Laryvent respiratory mask.
The reason for the termination of the employment relationship in July 2009 is exclusively to be seen in the fact that this project, for which the employee in question was the only one working, had to be discontinued in the early summer of 2008 due to unsuccessfulness in order to prevent further losses.
We expressly point out that the employee was offered several equivalent positions for further employment before the termination proceedings were initiated. The employee in question rejected all of these!
On the basis of this personal decision, there were exceptionally special operational reasons for terminating the employee's employment, which take precedence over the protection of parental leave. The further continuation of the unprofitable project and the financing of a highly paid employee without concrete employment due to the termination of the project would not have been economically justifiable from the company's point of view and is also not required by law.
However, in order to ensure that such a justification is not merely pretextual, an official review must be carried out before the termination is issued, in which the permissibility of the termination is examined. This examination procedure was also duly completed in the present case. After a thorough examination of the factual and legal situation, the responsible regional council finally granted exceptional approval for the termination. When the termination took effect, the employee's entitlement to salary and benefits such as a company car naturally ceased. In this respect, too, there was never a connection between the parental leave and the loss of benefits on the part of Masterflex AG.
Masterflex AG regrets the personal hardship this causes for the employee. However, in view of the interests of the company and the other employees, it had no alternative course of action, as the employee rejected all further employment opportunities offered to him at the company's headquarters in Gelsenkirchen and at a German subsidiary.
Finally, it should be noted that a number of employees at Masterflex AG - including those in management - are taking parental part-time leave without there ever having been any conflicts as suggested by SPIEGEL.
Masterflex AG has complained to the editorial team about the incomplete and incorrect statements in the article. SPIEGEL ONLINE has since removed the article from its website and has also undertaken not to disseminate it in this form in the future.