According to the Wall Steet J, Airbus Germany has been checking employee bank accounts against expenses made by suppliers. Is this legal in Europe for a company to get access to employee bank accounts? In the US I believe such checks would get a lot of legal static unless done by a law enforcement agency and even then would require just cause and a judge's order.

Are class action lawsuits permissible under German civil law? If ever there was a potential case....

The real / primary issue here is not Airbus checking on employee bank accounts (after all, most employees are usually paid by electronic transfer for which the employee supplies the company with their account details) .. but the allegation that Airbus has been involved in a wider campaign of spying on and undertaking questionable surveilance of employee activities in HAM.

This investigation is controversial and has been on-going for many months. It has also produced a major political spat in Germany. Further, it also appears to becoming more acrimonious the longer it persists.

Bearing in mind the (bracketed) comment in my opening paragraph, I do not condone the action of any company wantonly checking on employee accounts for no reason. But Airbus contends, from what I have read, that there are certain grounds for this action, based on business 'irregularities' which could constitute offences.

Further, lets not forget that banking laws and disclosure procedures vary wildly between countries around the world. Part of the argument / complaint against Airbus by many of the German "interested parties" has rested on the 'legality' of how this information has been obtained. But as said, it is a contributing point in what is a much larger issue of concern.

I am neither defending or accusing Airbus - so please do not flame, based on the above. The point is to indicate that this issue and it's surrounding situation has been news in Germany for quite some time.

Well it has now made it's way across the pond to the Wall Street J.

Oftentimes, a requirement for employment for those who handle money or negotiate contracts can include previoiusly agreed to rules, which may include audits, searches, and interviews. This is not an entirely uncommon facet of doing business. Confidentiality Agreements, non-disclosures, non-competes, etc., are more commonplace, but some companies require more before hiring into sensitive areas. In other words, regardless of the laws, they may have already signed away their rights as a condition to employment or advancement. Of course, such transactions may not appear as cash in an account, it could be a vase on a table, tickets to a game, a scholarship for a kid, or a villa in the mountains. The fact that there is suspicion means things are going on and they are trying to get ahead of the ball on this one, unlike the stock option scheme that took place after the bad news on the 380 many quarters ago.