Lesen Sie unten auf Deutsch
A vaccine against Sars-CoV-2 (the "Corona virus") will hopefully be available soon. The German labor law requirements regarding a vaccination for employees and a possible obligation to vaccinate are already largely clear.
Do employers have to offer the vaccination (free of charge)?
Employees cannot require their employer to carry out or pay for corona vaccinations. It is solely up to the employer to decide which concrete protective measures the employer wishes to undertake. However, it is often also in the employer's interest for employees to be vaccinated. If the employer offers a (free) vaccination, for example through the company doctor, this is a benefit that must be offered to all employees in principle, taking into account the principle of equality. Limiting the offer to only a few groups of employees will only be permissible in exceptional cases, for example if one group of employees is exposed to greater risks of infection than other groups. It would also be conceivable, for example, to grant "vaccination premiums/incentives" for a voluntary vaccination, the distribution principles of which are subject to the co-determination of the works council. Between 1 March and 31 December 2020, such "Corona special payments" are tax- and social security-free up to an amount of ? 1,500.00.
Can the employer demand that employees be vaccinated?
A corona vaccination is currently not mandatory for employees.
At present, there is no legal vaccination requirement for Corona virus. As of today, there is only such a legal obligation to vaccinate certain groups of employees in Germany in the case of measles. In this case, the legislator recently declared measles vaccination to be mandatory for certain groups of employees in the Measles Protection Act, which came into force on 1 March 2020. The Federal Constitutional Court has confirmed this compulsory vaccination in summary proceedings. Accordingly, the Infection Protection Act stipulates that all employees who work in health care facilities (such as hospitals) or who work in a community facility are subject to the measles vaccination obligation. Community facilities include schools or day care centers., Older employees born before 31 December 1970 are also excluded from the vaccination obligation. Employees affected by the vaccination obligation who do not present a vaccination certificate are not allowed to work in the affected companies; in such cases the public health department will issue a so-called ban on employment. As a rule, such a ban on activities can also justify a dismissal for personal reasons if the employee persistently refuses to be vaccinated. However, a "compulsory vaccination" is also out of the question here.
For a legal vaccination obligation with regard to the Corona vaccination, the Infection Protection Act would therefore first have to be amended. At present, there is no indication that a legal obligation to vaccinate is planned by the goverment. It is more likely that the vaccination will remain voluntary, as is the case with other infectious diseases.
Likewise, there is no (employment) contractual obligation to vaccinate. The employer's right of direction is not sufficient for a vaccination order; a vaccination obligation agreed upon in the contract of employment, measured at the requirements of the Term and Conditions Law, is unlikely to be effective and thus not enforceable.
Some argue that employers could – depending on the possible side-effects/risks of a vaccination on the one hand and the danger of the coronavirus on the other hand (lethality rate) – require the employee to be vaccinated due to the duty of loyalty under the employment contract. This opinion is to be seen critically and does not form a basis for employers to order obligatory vaccinations according to the current state of affairs. The employee is initially only obliged to undergo a health examination if the law or a collective agreement provides for this (e.g. occupational health check-up for certain position in certain sectors as the food industry). Furthermore, there is no general obligation to undergo a health examination as a contractual accessory obligation. Only in case of a legitimate interest of the employer the employee must tolerate a medical examination of his state of health. The employer's interest in the examination must always be weighed against the employee's interest in maintaining his privacy and physical integrity. First of all, a differentiation must be made according to the type of intervention and the objective of the intervention; in essence, a proportionality test is always required. No other standard can apply to vaccinations which – unlike health checks – are not per se suitable for assessing an incapacity to work based on an acute and/or chronic illness and to enable the employer to assess the employee's ability to work. Due to the purely preventive character of a vaccination and the high quality of the intervention (needle puncture and injection of a substance into the body of the employee as well as possible side effects of the vaccination), the balancing of interests is likely to be in favor of the physical integrity of the employee. In addition, the employer's fundamentally legitimate purpose of protecting his workforce from mass infection can also regularly be met by a milder means, such as the voluntary vaccination of larger groups of the workforce.
Thus, there is currently no obligation for employees to be vaccinated against Sars-CoV-2. Employers can nevertheless recommend vaccination to their staff and make it more effective by offering "vaccination premiums" or – for example through the company medical service – vaccinations free of charge. However, if an employee refuses (voluntary) vaccination, this refusal cannot be used as a basis for disciplinary measures under labor law, such as dismissal. Should the legal situation change, for example because a legal obligation to vaccinate certain groups of employees – analogous to the measles vaccination – will be introduced in the Infection Protection Act at the end of 2020 or when a vaccine is made available, at which time this issue will have to be assessed differently.
Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe - Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.
© Copyright 2020. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.
This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.