Koumentakis

Tag: κορονοϊός και επιχειρήσεις

  • Mandatory Vaccination: Positions, Contradictions, Regulations & Businesses

    Mandatory Vaccination: Positions, Contradictions, Regulations & Businesses

    We were concerned, in our previous article, with the obligation (or not) of employees to get vaccinated as well as withs the consequences of their (possible) refusal (or weakness) (: Deniers vs Business & Economy: 1-0). This article was followed by a piece of legislation (Law 4820/21-Government Gazette A 130/2021), which attempted to contribute to the management of the whole issue. Did it help businesses and the economy? Now that “the dust has settled down” from the various view on the matter, we can make a sober and brief assessment of it. In this context, the absolutely recent views expressed by the President of our Republic and the position of the scientific community will assist us.

    The position of the President of the Republic (and of our Republic): The responsibility of all of us

    One of the central slogans in the anti-vaccine demonstrations is “punks, traitors, politicians”. Words, if nothing else, full of hatred and discredit. Words that clearly go beyond freedom of speech but also the right to criticize.

    Do all our politicians have these specific characterizations? During the 47th anniversary of the restoration of the Republic, we heard, among other things, the President of the Republic clarifying:

    “Democracy does not only promote individual rights. The virtuous exercise of citizenship presupposes the distance from selfishness and the recognition of the good of the many. Our freedom is not unlimited and it does not involve the harm of others. Its power is within and not outside the law. In the health crisis, we realized how much our actions and decisions affect our fellow human beings. Our obligations to society as a whole are the other aspect of our rights. As the fourth wave becomes even more contagious, we realize the importance and urgency of mass vaccination. “There is no ambiguity and doubt: the end of the pandemic is no longer a matter of good fortune or metaphysics; it is our choice and responsibility.”

    This is the essence of our democracy. This, and only this, is the position that may be appropriate for the issue of vaccinations in a benevolent and democratic country like ours.

    This is the reason why we must, without exception, adopt this view for this issue and for each any relevant one.

    The position of the scientific community: The way of transmission of the coronavirus

    Researchers from the Universities of Oxford, Colorado, California, North Carolina, Toronto and San Diego published (most recently-15.4.21) their study in the prestigious Medical Review “The Lancet” entitled “Ten scientific reasons in support of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2”.

    This study concludes:

    “There is steady, strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is being transmitted by airborne transmission. Although other routes may contribute, we believe that air transmission is likely to be dominant. The public health community must act accordingly and without further delay.”

    Should we remain inactive and apathetic as a society in this finding? What do we have to do – other than keep the windows open?

    Obligation to present a vaccination certificate or disease certificate

    The (absolutely) recent law, which we mentioned in the introduction, is moving in the direction of the views expressed by the President of the Republic and the aforementioned scientific study. It aims to remind us (but also, necessarily, impose) our democratic duty to ensure the lives and health of our most vulnerable fellow human beings.

    In this context, it provides (: article 205, par. a) that, until 31.12.21, “public and private sector employees who have completed the COVID-19 coronavirus vaccination or have become ill within the last six months, are obliged to demonstrate to the head of the organizational unit where they serve or to their employer, respectively” either a vaccination certificate or a disease certificate. In fact, the relevant certificates and attestations are checked “by the employer through the special electronic application” that has already been put into operation.

    Obligation to get vaccinated

    The specific piece of legislation imposes the obligation of vaccination “for imperative reasons of protection of public health”.

    In fact, this obligation concerns “all staff of private, public and municipal care units for the elderly and people with disabilities (medical, paramedical, nursing, administrative and support staff)” (Article 206 §1a).

    It also occupies “all staff (medical, paramedical, nursing, administrative and support) in private, public and municipal health structures (diagnostic centers, rehabilitation centers, clinics, hospitals, primary health care facilities, hospital units, National Organization of Public Health)” (§2).

    Let us clarify, of course, that the above personnel includes anyone who provides services or works – permanently or temporarily, directly or through third parties. Even the volunteers (§3).

    This obligation does not apply to those who have fallen ill (“for a period of six (6) months from the illness”) as well as to those who will be able to demonstrate specific health reasons (specifically identified by the National Vaccination Committee) that prevent them from getting the vaccine (§4).

    The deadlines for compliance and the consequences of refusal

    Those who are obliged to be vaccinated have a deadline to receive the first (or, as the case may be) single dose of the vaccine until 16.8.21 (or, in the case of healthcare facilities, until 1.9.21). They are also obliged, in cases where a second dose is provided, to proceed with the completion of the vaccination -as provided.

    However, in the event of non-compliance of those required to be vaccinated, severe penalties are provided for both employees and employers (Article 206 §6).

    For employees – “deniers”: Their contracts are suspended. Most importantly, however, they are not paid the required wages, whether they work in the public or private sector or are employed on employment, project, independent service, loan contracts or through a contractor.

    As for the employers who employ, nevertheless, unvaccinated employees, the penalties provided are severe: a fine of 10,000 to 50,000 € is imposed for each violation and, in case of recurrence from 20,000 to 200,000€ for each violation.

    The possibility of extending the measures to other categories of employees

    Although logically expected, the provision that provides for the possibility of extending the specific measures, by Joint Ministerial Decision, to other categories of employees, as well as the possible specialization of the specific regulations, caused quite a stir (article 206 §7).

    In particular, this provision provides: “the specification and extension of the categories of persons to be obligated to get vaccinated, the determining of the procedure and timing of vaccination, as well as any prioritization, monitoring and control of compliance with the obligation, the specific conditions of the protection of personal data and any other necessary details are provided… “.

    Based on the statements of the government so far and the relevant news reports, it seems that other categories of employees, such as teachers, are not so far behind.

    Replacement of the deniers – recruitments for a specific time

    In order to fill the gaps created in the Public Sector bodies by the suspensions of the employment contracts of those who refuse to be vaccinated, it is possible to hire staff with three-month fixed-term contracts that can be extended for another three months (Article 207).

    For the respective cases and gaps created in the private sector, the employer is entitled to act at will – without any restrictions.

    And the many (other) businesses?

    As the provisions mentioned above refer only to specific categories of employees, it is obvious that no other category is under them – at least for the time being.

    It is therefore obvious that all other businesses are called upon to manage corresponding problems without coverage from the government and without any directions.

    Unfortunately.

    We closed the last article in our series of the relevant topic, noting that: “businesses are completely helpless against any employee who refuses (even for non-medical reasons) to be vaccinated. Let’s hope that, soon, they will be provided with the absolutely necessary legislative tools to manage such situations.”

    The State, however, chose not to take full responsibility and the relevant (but necessary) political costs. It currently limited the measures taken to specific categories of employees.

    The burden and responsibility is passed on, therefore – unjustly, to businesses that are called upon to solve intractable problems: Tolerance (?) of those who (even for non-medical reasons) refuse to be vaccinated, management of problems that may arise in production or customer service, safeguarding the lives and health of employees and their families – especially those belonging to vulnerable groups.

    It is desirable (in the context of the directions of the President of the Republic but also, of course, of the scientific community) for the State to take the absolutely necessary measures.

    The soonest possible.-

    Stavros Koumentakis
    Managing Partner

     

    P.S. A brief version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA Newspaper (August 1st, 2021).

     

    Disclaimer: the information provided in this article is not (and is not intended to) constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be offered by a competent attorney and after the latter takes into consideration all the relevant to your case data that you will provide them with. See here for more details.

  • Deniers vs Business & Economy: 1-0

    Deniers vs Business & Economy: 1-0

    In our previous article, at the beginning of May 2021, we referred, among other things, to the obligation (or not) of employees to get vaccinated under the then existing legal regime. The data are changing extremely rapidly – especially with regard to the ongoing pandemic: While we observed new cases at the end of June be around 200-300 per day, we suddenly see them approaching 3,000. Nightmare scenarios predict, very soon, up to 10,000 cases per day. The fourth wave of the pandemic is already underway. The D variant threatens to “shake up” the health system again. Its weapon is the unvaccinated. Primarily the (for whatever reason) Deniers. But what is their impact on the operation of businesses? And what are the “weapons” of the latter to deal with them?

    The Prime Minister’s announcements. The enforcement of vaccinations (targeted)

    In the recent prime ministerial announcements of 12.7.21 regarding the handling of the pandemic, we heard, among other things, that the immediate vaccination of those employed in elderly care units, in the health sector, in the Armed Forces will become mandatory. Expected – among the sanctions – is the suspension of employment contracts of liable persons, who choose to not comply – despite the fact that they are employed in “critical structures”.

    We have also heard about the possibility of marking some businesses that operate with staff who have been vaccinated or have gotten the illness in the last six months. This was followed by the (absolutely recent) relevant CMO [: D1a / in house protocol no. 44779 / 15.7.2019 (Government Gazette B 3117 / 16.7.21)], where in article 1 the “extraordinary measures of protection of public health per field of activity” were identified. Among them we find that for specific, exclusive, categories of businesses (eg those that operate in the fields of “Live shows” and “Catering” (: §§12 & 16) there is the possibility of their operation, should the businesses choose so, with the appropriate marking, solely with people who have been vaccinated or become ill in the last six months. Also, should all their employees have either been vaccinated and / or become ill during the last six months, those businesses have the right to display the following sign by affixing it in a prominent (obvious) place:

    But if one of its employees is among the Deniers, the business loses the relevant privilege that comes with a self-evident, obviously not insignificant, financial loss.

    Human rights – the right to vaccination and the right to its denial

    Those who deny vaccinations invoke, among other things, their (violated) human rights. This particular topic has occupied us, in detail, in our article mentioned in the introduction. Very briefly:

    Let us not forget that the most competent body to speak on human rights is none other than the ECtHR (: European Court of Human Rights). In a very recent decision (: 8.4.21-Vavřička and others v. Czech Republic) it assessed, inter alia, that those who refuse to comply should face the consequences of their refusal. And so did the decision of the CoC no. 2387/20 (which is really interesting and especially important for our country).

    Therefore: each of us has, indeed, the right to choose to be vaccinated or not. But they must also be ready to accept the (legal) consequences of their refusal.

    Implementation of the enforced vaccinations and the consequences for the “non-compliant”

    On the issue of vaccinations, we already have, since the declaration of the pandemic, the necessary, constitutionally tolerated (more precisely: constitutionally imposed) legislation.

    The (ongoing) National Vaccination Program, but also the possibility of compulsory vaccination of specific population groups, take place within the framework of these legislations. Among them is the possibility “for any partial or complete suspension of labour obligations” of the liable persons (inc .: articles 4 §3 law 4675/20 and article 1 law 4682/2020-which ratified the 25.2.2020 Legislative Decree and, in particular, article 1 §§2 & 4 thereof).

    The situation is beginning to clear up, at least on a legal level, as we expect, precisely in this context and on the basis of the aforementioned prime ministerial announcements, the ministerial decisions that will make mandatory the immediate vaccination of specific categories of employees and the suspension of employment contracts of those refusing to comply. It would not surprise us if more categories of employees were included in the future (eg teachers and so on) …

    But what about other businesses? Those who (co)constitute the backbone of the real economy of the country?

    The obligation to ensure the life & health of employees-Sanctions

    Businesses have extremely important (general and specific) obligations regarding “the health and safety of employees in all aspects of work” (indicative articles 42 & 43, law 3850/20). They must, inadvertently, comply with their specific obligations.

    Let us not forget, moreover, that “the obligations of the safety technician, the occupational physician and the employees’ representatives do not affect the principle of the employer’s responsibility” (article 42 §3, law 3850/20). What does this mean? Violation of the obligations of businesses related to ensuring the health of employees burdens them as well, without a doubt. It even raises administrative and criminal sanctions.

    Businesses must therefore (for reasons of compliance with the law – but above all for moral reasons) take the appropriate measures to ensure the highest good: the lives and health of their employees.

    The Sword of Damocles is hanging over them in case they omit to do so.

    Businesses in the field of production, services and trade-The stress-The impasses

    In recent months, since the launch of the National Vaccination Program, businesses have increasingly turned to their legal advisers to investigate their ability (or not) to require the vaccination of their employees who refuse to get vaccinated. Lately the questions (and the stress) are getting more and more intense.

    The basis of the relevant considerations is twofold. On the one hand, the continuation of the smooth operation of the business and on the other hand, the (reasonable) pressures they receive from the other (vaccinated and anxious for their own and their relatives’ health) employees. Especially the last issue is not minor: How to respond to the anxiety of a vaccinated employee, that they or someone close to them belongs to a vulnerable group, when they are forced to work with their unvaccinated colleague?

    Lately we have seen employees’ representatives write public letters asking for (in fact) mandatory vaccination of their colleagues. We have also seen businesses threatening, in a disguised form or not, their employees who deny getting vaccinated or offering them various (financial and not) incentives in order to get the “valuable” vaccine.

    We must be clear: It is a given that businesses are not entitled, at least under the current legal scheme, to impose the vaccination of their employees. Any such enforcement exposes them, irreparably, to a variety of sanctions.

    The legislative background is also not there.

    Unfortunately, the data is “blurred” even by official sources. We find that there are, wrongly, attempts made to pass on the relevant responsibility to businesses. A responsibility that belongs, without a doubt, to the executive authority and the legislature.

    The right (?) to the suspension of employment contracts and the (without compensation) dismissal of the deniers

    The Minister of Development and Investment, Mr. Georgiadis, argued, in his absolutely recent (17.7.21) television appearances, that a business has the right (in general) to suspend the employment contract of its unvaccinated employees. And also that it has the right to dismiss them, without compensation in fact, as non-vaccination is a great reason for dismissal.

    It should be clearly emphasized, however, that the specific positions are very wrong, at least at a legal level, (in the case, of course, that they were correctly recorded during their publication). In brief:

    Dismissal of an employee, without payment of the compensation due by law, is provided in absolutely specific cases. Non-vaccination is not included.

    Also: it has not been ruled, at least to date, that a non-vaccination of an employee is an great reason for dismissal.

    Finally: the suspension of the employment contract of an employee does not seem possible, in the present circumstances, as there is a lack of a relevant legal background (: see the Ministerial Decision, in particular, provided in article 1 §4 of 25.2.2020 Legislative Decree-ratified by Article 1 of Law 4682/2020).

    The treatment of Deniers by businesses

    It is a given that (for whatever reason) the deniers endanger the operation of the business. Also: the life and health of their colleagues and their relatives – especially those belonging to vulnerable groups.

    Employers must take the necessary (and possible) measures on a case-by-case basis (: regular rapid tests and, possibly, molecular tests, teleworking, relocation, isolation from other employees, etc.). But it is obvious that the possibilities seem completely, on a practical level, limited. Moreover, not all businesses have multiple options and their jobs and / or spatial planning are not suitable for such alternatives.

    The weight is transferred, unjustifiably, to them.

    And it is inconceivably heavy.

    Businesses are entitled (and obliged) to take all necessary measures to ensure the life and health of their employees. They are entitled, in this context, to require – but are unable to impose – their vaccination. Even when the (other) vaccinated employees (or people in their environment) belong to vulnerable groups and their lives are indeed in danger.

    How can one explain to the latter that their lives are somewhat less important than the lives of those housed in nursing homes or healthcare facilities – where the vaccination of employees will be institutionally imposed?

    Businesses are entitled (and obliged) to take all necessary measures to ensure their operation and continuity. The entrepreneur is the one who will be called to face any problems in their operation: the halt of the production line, the inability to deliver or the inability to serve their customers. Even when the cause is the illness of their employees – because of their refusal to be vaccinated.

    How can one explain to the latter that their whole business can rightly be endangered by individual employees who unjustifiably refuse to be vaccinated?

    And finally, how can one explain to the customers of a restaurant business how they can, safely, be served by the unvaccinated waiters, cooks or helpers of the restaurant / tavern that, under different circumstances, they would visit? And, in addition, how could they unjustifiably choose another establishment, with the valuable (above) mark, to enjoy the delicacies?

    It is therefore obvious, based on the above data, that businesses are completely helpless against any employee who refuses (even for non-medical reasons) to be vaccinated. Let’s hope that, soon, they will be provided with the absolutely necessary legislative tools to manage such situations.

    Until then, however, it seems perfectly obvious that:

    Deniers vs Business & Economy: 1-0.-

    Stavros Koumentakis
    Managing Partner

     

    P.S. A brief version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA Newspaper (July 25, 2021).

     

    Disclaimer: the information provided in this article is not (and is not intended to) constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be offered by a competent attorney and after the latter takes into consideration all the relevant to your case data that you will provide them with. See here for more details.

  • Coronavirus: Is the vaccination of employees mandatory?

    Coronavirus: Is the vaccination of employees mandatory?

    AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, Sputnik, CoronaVac…: already dominate our lives, the media and our conversations. On the one hand their (few-fortunately) deniers and on the other all those who are eager to be vaccinated or have already been vaccinated. In the middle are those who are still worried. It seems normal that the debate on compulsory vaccination of employees has begun. And it is an intense and, at the same time, global debate. Let us attempt a brief, sober, approach to the subject.

     

    The opening of the debate in our country

    The debate on the imposition of the obligation of vaccination started, in fact-without “fanfare”, more than a year ago in our country (: Law 4675/2020, Government Gazette A 54 / 11.3.20-which provided for the possibility of imposition of the obligation to be vaccinated “to prevent the spread of disease”). Ignoring this fact, however, the prime minister brought it back it in a very recent interview. Among other things, he mentioned:

    “… I think that the debate on the mandatory vaccination of certain categories of employees, especially those employed in the health sector, must be opened. “I do not want to have this discussion now, but I believe that in September-October … we should discuss very seriously and talk to the other parties about the mandatory vaccination of some categories, especially in the health sector”.

    “… We have also set up a new bioethics committee… with scientists of the highest caliber … to give an opinion… on the ethical dimension of compulsory vaccination of categories of employees… especially of health professionals”

    He clarified, however, to avoid misunderstandings, that: “… No employer can fire an employee in a private company… because the employee will choose not to get the vaccine”.

     

    The legal framework in our country

    The obligation to get vaccinated

    The issue of mandatory vaccination against the Covid-19 infection is provided in Article 4 § 3 par. iii.b. Law 4675/2020: “b) In cases of occurrence of risk of transmission of communicable disease, which may have serious effects on public health, by decision of the Minister of Health, after the opinion of the National Committee of Public Health Experts, mandatory vaccination can be imposed in order to prevent spread of the disease. The above decision defines the group of the population for which the vaccination with a fixed vaccine becomes mandatory, the area of the imposition of the mandatory vaccination, the period of validity of the mandatory vaccination, which must always be decided as an emergency and temporary protection of public health for a specific group of the population, the regulation of the vaccination process and any other relevant details”.

    No decision of the Minister of Health has been issued yet, determining the relevant vaccination as mandatory. However, based on the above-mentioned prime ministerial declarations, such a thing is not to happen before Autumn.

     

    The obligation to protect the health of employees (and not only…)

    Employers are obliged to take care of the health of their employees. It is an obligation of theirs that derives directly from the law (: “the employer is obliged to ensure the health and safety of employees…” -article 42 §1 law 3850/2010). At the same time, however, it is an ancillary obligation (resulting from good faith) to other employees.

    And beyond the law: it is not without value to justify the dismissal, on the basis of moral values, of those who refuse to be vaccinated. When, in particular, we are talking about employees in structures that are sensitive by nature (eg hospitals or nursing homes) the answer seems easier.

    However, one could reasonably adopt the position that employees who refuse to be vaccinated violate the ancillary obligation to protect the health of their colleagues. Much more of those who are called to care for (patients, the elderly, etc)

     

    “Images” from the USA, Germany and Italy

    USA: Of particular interest is the Directive of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of the United States dated 16.12.20. Employers, according to it, have the right to demand that their employees be vaccinated. However, they must exclude people who are prevented from being vaccinated, either for health reasons or for religious reasons. For the latter they must find ways of arranging their work (eg teleworking), in order to reduce any risks from non-vaccination. Unless the employer bears a significant burden (eg financial) from this arrangement.

    Germany: From the first days of 2021, the Prime Minister of Bavaria, Marcus Zeder, advocated for the mandatory coronavirus vaccination for certain groups of employees. Indicatively, for the nursing staff in hospitals and nursing homes. His proposal provoked strong reactions. Among those opposing was the Minister of Labor, Mr. Hubertus Heil. The government, the opposition and the trade unionists were quickly added to the protesters. It seems that everyone started “casting stones” at him.

    Italy: At the judicial level, however, Italy emerges as a leader. After all, it makes sense if we consider the blow it suffered by the pandemic. Nurses at two nursing homes in Veneto, Italy, refused to be vaccinated. The employer put them on compulsory paid leave. The nurses appealed to the Court to return to work. The court rejected their application. Central (and yet very interesting) reasoning for the “validation” of their compulsory leave, was the protection of employees themselves from the risk of contracting Covid-19 infection, due to their contact with patients and their visitors in the health structures.

     

    The first terminations of employment contracts in our country

    The first two terminations of employment contracts due to refusal of vaccination are already a fact in our country.

    The first case concerns the termination of the employment contract of a physiotherapist, working in a nursing home in Ilia. The latter refused to get vaccinated. His employment contract was terminated due to his specific refusal, on the grounds of the need to protect the elderly in the nursing home.

    The second termination of this nature concerns the employment contract of an employee in a charity in Crete. The specific employee, according to the relevant publications, asked for time in order to consider the possibility of vaccination. She was, also, eventually fired.

     

    The contribution of existing case law

    Issues related to compulsory vaccination have been addressed in recent decisions by both the Council of State and the ECtHR. The specific cases, however, concerned the refusal to vaccinate infants and the legality of the refusal to accept or enroll them in the nursery school or kindergarten, respectively. The reasoning and ruling, however, of the above decisions give us some first answers to the questions about the necessity or not of vaccination.

     

    Decision No. 2387/2020 of the Council of State

    Parents addressed the Council of State requesting the annulment of a decision of the Municipality of Drama for the removal of four unvaccinated infants from the nursery schools of the Municipality. The reason for the decision of the Municipality was the refusal of the parents of the infants to comply with the repeated instructions of the pediatrician of the kindergartens for the start of the vaccination program. The Council of State, with its decision no. 2387/2020, rejected the parents’ application. The Municipality was vindicated.

    This decision provides guidelines in trying to find out whether or not vaccination is required in the workplace. Also, for the legality of the (consequent) termination of the employment contract in case of refusal of vaccination.

    This is because, as it is accepted in this decision: “The measure of vaccination, in itself, constitutes a serious intervention in the free development of the personality and in the private life of the individual and in particular in their physical and mental integrity, but constitutionally tolerated, under the following conditions: (a) that it is provided for by specific legislation, fully adopting valid and substantiated scientific, medical and epidemiological findings in the relevant field; and (b) that vaccination is exempted in specific individual cases, for which it is contraindicated.’.

    Of particular interest is the thought of this decision, according to which the refusal to vaccinate violates the principle of equality. Violation of the principle of equality occurs when a person claims not to have been vaccinated, claiming that “they are not at personal risk, as long as they live in a safe environment due to the fact that other persons in their environment have been vaccinated”.

     

    ECtHR: The case of Vavřička and others v. Czech Republic

    In the case of Vavřička and Others v. Czech Republic, the broad panel of the ECtHR (European Court of Human Rights) ruled that compulsory vaccination of children in the Czech Republic was in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Specifically, with its absolutely recent decision (of 8.4.21), it assessed that there is no violation of Article 8 of the ECtHR, which guarantees the right to respect private and family life.

    As, in particular, the ECtHR points out, compulsory vaccination is in principle part of the protection and respect of privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR, as it constitutes a medical intervention without consent. In the present case, however, no compulsory vaccination took place. It assessed, however, that those who are legally responsible for infant vaccination and refuse to comply should face the consequences of their refusal. These consequences, in this case, consisted of the denial of access to infants to pre-school education as well as the imposition of a fine on a parent who refused to vaccinate their children.

    This decision approaches the issue of compulsory vaccination from a different perspective. From the point of view of the legal consequences faced by the one who refuses the vaccination.

    The ECtHR, examining, in the specific case, the purpose, the scope of application and the foreseen exceptions of the imposed measure, proceeded to a proportionality check. While acknowledging that the safety and efficacy of vaccines are not guaranteed, it ruled, however, that the consequences of vaccination refusal under Czech law are proportionate to the objective of protecting citizens from serious risks concerning public health.

     

    As mentioned in the introduction, the debate about the obligation (or not) of vaccination in employees is both global and intense. And as time goes on it will become, for sure, more intense.

    The issue concerns both businesses and employees. And, finally, all of us.

    The legal framework in our country is already ready for the (conditional) imposition of mandatory vaccination. A ministerial decision is left to be issued. But based on the recent prime ministerial declarations, we should not expect it before Autumn. Until its issuance, however, employers are not entitled to terminate their employees’ employment contracts due to their refusal to be vaccinated.

    However, if such a Ministerial Decision is issued, the Council of State has already prepared us that we should not expect its annulment.

    And if those opposing are thinking of invoking a violation of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, the competent court (: ECtHR) has also given us its position.

    Fortunately.-

    Stavros Koumentakis
    Managing Partner

     

    P.S. A brief version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA Newspaper (May 9, 2021).

     

    Disclaimer: the information provided in this article is not (and is not intended to) constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be offered by a competent attorney and after the latter takes into consideration all the relevant to your case data that you will provide them with. See here for more details.

  • Regarding the pandemic, rents, securities and aid…

    Regarding the pandemic, rents, securities and aid…

    The pandemic is well underway. We are preparing (?) for the management of the (unfortunately with certainty expected) “third wave”. Public health is severely affected. Correspondingly, the blow that the national economy (also) suffers (and inevitably the businesses as well) is very heavy. A new package of measures is already a reality. It concerns the rents of the affected businesses, the securities issued by them as well as their support in the form of fixed expenses. Law 4772/2021 (Government Gazette A ’17 / 05.02.2021) is already a fact. It is worth focusing on its relevant provisions.

     

    A. Section one: Rents

    Question 1: Which businesses are completely exempt from the obligation to pay rent and for which months?

    Businesses (whose operation has been suspended or banned or, at least, affected by the pandemic) are exempted from the obligation to pay their total rent due, for the months of January and February 2021. The specific, affected, businesses are defined by sector and per month by decision of the Minister of Finance (article 26).

     

    Question 2: What is the tax treatment of the (part or of all) the monthly rent that is not collected?

    When, due to the pandemic, there is either a complete exemption from the payment of rent (see above, for January and February 2021) or a reduced payment of rent (by 40% by law or by at least 30% following a landlord-tenant agreement) the amount of rent that is not collected is not subject to income tax and special solidarity surcharge (Article 27 §1).

     

    Question 3: Regarding natural persons-landlords, in which cases are their tax liabilities reduced and in which cases does the State undertake to pay a percentage of the rent they did not receive?

    Landlords who, due to the pandemic, receive a reduced rent (by 40% by law or at by at least 30% following a landlord-tenant agreement) are entitled to a 20% discount on the 60% of the rent (up until the rent of 10/2020) before the above reduction, from debts to the tax authority from 31.7.2020 onwards (except those relating to arrangements or facilities for partial payment, debts in favor of a foreign government and recovery of state aid). To the specific natural persons-landlords for November 2020 and onwards, 50% of the rents of these months will be paid by the State, instead of the discount. Especially with regard to the months of January and February 2021, 80% of the rents of these months can be paid by the State, instead of the landlords receiving the discount (article 27 §2a).

     

    Question 4: Regarding legal entities-landlords, in which cases does the State undertake to pay a percentage of the rent they did not receive?

    To the legal entities-landlords that, due to the pandemic, do not receive rent for the months of January and February 2021, 60% of the rents of these months will be paid by the State (article 27 §2a).

     

    Question 5: Can the payments of the State to natural and legal persons-landlords that concern percentages of the rents that are not collected due to the pandemic be confiscated?

    The amount paid by the State to landlords relating to a percentage of rents not received by them due to the pandemic, does not fall into any category of income, is not subject to any tax, levy, contribution or other deduction in favor of the State (including solidarity surcharge), is unassignable and inalienable by the State or by third parties, cannot be bound and cannot be set off with certified debts to the State, legal entities under public law, Local Authorities, legal entities of the latter, insurance bunds and credit institutions (Article 27 §2b).

     

    B. Section two: Securities

    Question 6: Is the deadline for payment of securities suspended? For which businesses? Which securities? For how long? Under what conditions?

    The measure concerns: (a) the affected businesses (which have either suspended their activity or have been severely affected by the pandemic – depending on the NACE Revision 2 classification of their business activity, as determined by decision of the Minister of Finance), which show a reduced turnover during the period October – December 2020 by more than 40% in relation to the turnover of the respective period of the year 2019 and (b) the suspension of deadlines for the expiration, appearance and payment of the securities issued by them (from 25.1.21 to 28.2.21) by 75 days from the date indicated on each security (Article 28 §1a).

     

    Question 7: What is the procedure to be followed for the suspension of the payment of the securities?

    Anyone who has the right or obligation deriving from the securities mentioned above (Question 6), ie: issuer, recipient or bearer, is entitled to transmit the data of the securities to the banks within six (6) working days from the day following the inclusion of the code of their business activity to the affected businesses or within six (6) working days by a relevant Ministerial Decision, through a special relevant electronic application of the credit institutions of the DIAS payment system (article 28 §1b).

     

    Question 8: What about the “certified” checks of January 2021? How are they treated?

    The securities that are payable from affected businesses (Question 6), for which it has been confirmed or is to be confirmed that the payment bank is unable to pay them up from 2.1.2020 until the publication of the relevant Ministerial Decision, are not registered in (or if registered are deleted from) economic behavior data files. But only as long as they are repaid within 75 days from their “certification” or expiration. For the claims arising from the specific securities, the issuance of a payment order, as well as the taking of any kind of measures or the levy of execution are suspended for 75 days from their “certification” or expiration (article 28 §2).

     

    Question 9: Which securities bearers are affected by the extension of payment of VAT?

    The measure concerns: Securities bearers who are not included in industries affected by the pandemic, but the codes of their business activity do not show a significant increase in their trading cycle during the crisis caused by the pandemic.

    Prerequisite: The total value of the securities held by them as bearers, whose repayment is suspended, exceeds 20% of the average monthly turnover of the previous tax year.

    Extension of payment deadlines until 31.5.2021: (a) of the certified debts owed to the Tax Authorities / Audit Centers from VAT declarations, which expired from 1.1.2021-31.1.2021, as well as (b) for payment of VAT which have been certified or will be confirmed, with a submission deadline of 31.1.2021 and 28.2.2021 (Article 28 §3a).

     

    Question 10: Which securities bearers are concerned with the extension of repayment of their own securities? How long is the extension for?

    The measure concerns: Bearers of securities who are operating in sectors not included in the sectors affected by the pandemic, but do not operate under business codes which show a significant increase in their trading cycle during the crisis caused by the pandemic.

    Prerequisite: The total value of the securities held by them as bearers, whose repayment is suspended, exceeds 50% of the average monthly turnover of the previous tax year.

    Extension of the deadline for the repayment of their own securities: The securities due from the aforementioned security bearers, regarding which the paying bank has certified or will certify an inability to repay from 2.1.2021 to 28.2.21, are not registered in (or if they were registered they are deleted from) economic behavior data files. But only as long as they are repaid within 75 days from their “certification” or expiration (article 28 §3b).

     

    Question 11: Are the debtor and their bearer entitled to agree on a payment on the date of issue / expiration of a security?

    The right of the debtor to get an extension on the payment of the security does not prevent them from agreeing with the bearer and beneficiary of the security on the repayment on the indicated date of issue / expiration (article 28 §4).

     

    Question 12: What about the securities repayment deadlines that have already been extended?

    The deadlines for repaying securities have been extended by various laws. The set repayment deadlines of 30.9.20 and 31.10.20 are further extended until 30.4.21. Until the specific date (30.4.21) the issuance of a payment order is suspended, as well as the taking of any kind of measures or levy of execution (article 28 §5).

     

    Question 13: What about checks that were “certified” or bills of exchange that were not paid from 1.11.20 onwards?

    Securities issued by businesses specified in the Legislative Decree of 22.8.2020 (Article 7 §3), which (securities) have been confirmed or are to be confirmed as default by the paying bank from 1 November 2020 onwards, are not registered in economic behavior data files, if proven to be repaid by 30 April 2021. For receivables arising from the specific securities, the issuance of a payment order, as well as the granting of any kind of measures or any levy of execution are suspended until 30 April 2021 (Article 28 §6).

    The same applies to securities which are under a (legislative) extension of the repayment period until 31.12.20 (pursuant to article 35 of law 4735/20120). This deadline is further extended until 30.4.21 (article 28 §7).

     

    C. Section three: Business aid in the form of fixed costs

    Question 14: What is it about and who is entitled to business support in the form of fixed costs?

    Businesses affected financially by the appearance and spread of COVID-19 coronavirus may be granted aid in the form of a fixed cost subsidy in support of non-covered fixed costs of businesses. The relevant details will be determined by a Common Ministerial Decision of the Ministers of Finance and Labor & Social Affairs (Article 29).

     

    Businesses are hit hard – simultaneously with the national economy. Targeted arrangements are made to assist them in managing part of the problems they face. However, their exemption from part of the due rents does not seem enough. Nor the time shift of their obligations to the State or of their obligations arising from securities. Besides, as far as the latter (securities) are concerned, their bearers are looking forward to their repayment in order to deal with their own financial struggles.

    We have all invested a lot in the vaccine to manage (not only) the current financial crisis. At the moment, at least, the relevant “investments” do not seem to be paying off. Other more drastic (and more immediate) measures should therefore be selected and implemented.

     

     

     

    Stavros Koumentakis
    Managing Partner

     

    P.S. A brief version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA Newspaper (February 14, 2021).

     

    Disclaimer: the information provided in this article is not (and is not intended to) constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be offered by a competent attorney and after the latter takes into consideration all the relevant to your case data that you will provide them with. See here for more details.

  • Suspension of employment contracts of December

    Suspension of employment contracts of December

    Coronavirus and Employment Relationships (: Suspension of employment contracts for the month of December)

    The legislative delays (of course also the delays at taking measures at the department of national health) were unjustified during the critical, second, wave of the Pandemic. We have mentioned them in our previous article. We also referred to the phenomenon of ex-post legislation that creates so many problems in business planning and in the persons involved (businesses, employees, accountants). The phenomenon exceeded all logic when on 26.11.20 the legal framework for the suspension of employment contracts for the month of November was published (although it had been announced from 31.10.20, by the Prime Minister). Ministerial Order no. 49989/20 has already been published (Government Gazette B’ 5391/7.12.20) regarding the suspension of employment contracts for the month of December. It is a small progress time-wise.

    But let’s look at its basic provisions.

     

    A. Businesses whose operation is suspended by order of a public authority.

    Question 1: Which businesses do the measures concern?

    The measures concern the businesses which have their headquarters or a branch-branches in regional units, whose operation of the headquarters or their branches is suspended, by order of a public authority, depending on the NACE Revision 2 classification of their business activity, as defined by the Ministry of Finance (Chapter A, Article 1 §1).

    Question 2: Which employees’ contracts are suspended and for how long?

    The measure concerns the employees of the above (Question 1) businesses, who have been hired until November 4, 2020. Their contracts are obligatorily suspended (or their pre-existing suspension is extended) for the period, as the case may be, from 1.11. 2020 until 6.11.2020 or 7.11.2020 until 30.11.2020 (chapter A, articles 1 §§1 & 2). The same applies to employees who have joined the COOPERATION Program (chapter A, articles 1 §§1 & 2). Also, to those employees who are subsidized by the Open Program of the 100,000 new subsidized jobs (Chapter A, Article 1 §3b).

    Question 3: What about fixed-term employment contracts?

    Fixed-term employment contracts which expire after the date of suspension of the operation of their employer’s business by order of a public authority, must be suspended. After the period of suspension, the employment contracts are continued for the agreed, remaining time. This obligation does not apply when there is an objective weakness such as, for example, in the cases of businesses that by their form or type or activity have a specific operating time (Chapter A, Article 1 §3a).

    Question 4: What about the exceptional activities of these businesses?

    The specific businesses, those that exemptions from the suspension for specific activities of theirs apply, can:

    (a) Have their employees (whose employment contracts have not been suspended) telework, where it possible (Chapter A, Article 1 §4a),

    (b) Hire employees under the program “Open Program for 100,000 new subsidized jobs”. The specific employees can telework, but it is not possible to suspend their contracts (Chapter A, Article 1 §4b) and

    (c) Suspend the employment contracts of their employees (Chapter A, Article 1 §4c).

    Question 5: Is it possible to revoke the suspension of employment contracts of employees of the specific businesses?

    These businesses may only temporarily revoke the suspension of their employees’ employment contracts to cover emergency, temporary, urgent and inelastic needs, in the context of the COVID-19 coronavirus (Chapter A, Article 1 §5).

    Question 6: What are the obligations of the specific businesses?

    These businesses for as long as the contracts of their employees are suspended and, in any case, until December 31, 2020, are obliged not to reduce their staff due to dismissals. In case of a dismissal, such is invalid (Chapter A, Article 1 §6).

     

    B. Affected businesses

    Question 7: Which businesses do the measures concern?

    The measures concern the businesses that have been determined by the Ministry of Finance as affected, depending on the NACE Revision 2 classification of their business activity (chapter B, article 1 §1).

    Question 8: Which employees’ contracts can be suspended and for how long?

    The measure concerns the employees of the above (Question 7) businesses. Their contracts may be suspended (or their pre-existing suspension can be extended) from 1.12.2020 to 31.12.2020 at the latest (Chapter B, Articles 1 §1a & b). The same applies to employees who have joined the COOPERATION Program (Chapter B, Article 1 §4). Also, to those employees who are subsidized by the Open Program for the 100,000 new subsidized jobs, under the condition that all employees of the business are suspended (Chapter B, Article 1 §3).

    Question 9: What about fixed-term employment contracts?

    The suspension of fixed-term employment contracts of employees, which had been suspended in the past, can be extended until 30.11.20-maximum. It is possible to suspend, for the first time, fixed-term employment contracts of employees who were hired before 4.11.20. After the expiration of the period of suspension, the employment contracts continue for the agreed, remaining, time. This obligation does not apply when there is an objective weakness such as, for example, in the cases of businesses that by their form or type or activity have a specific operating time (Chapter B, Article 2 §3).

    Question 10: Is it possible to revoke the suspension of employment contracts of employees of the specific businesses? The utilization of the “COOPERATION” program?

    The specific businesses may revoke the suspension of employment contracts of their employees but also re-suspend them until 31.12.20 (Chapter B, Article 2 §4). Contrary to the provisions for the revocation of the suspension by businesses whose operation has been suspended by order of a public authority, the affected businesses are not required to give any special reason to revoke the suspension of employment contracts. It is also possible (chapter B, article 2 §5a) to utilize the COOPERATION program for their employees whose employment contracts are not suspended.

    Question 11: What about telework?

    These businesses are obliged to have their employees telework, as long as their work can by provided this way, according to what is defined by the no. 44921/1377 / 2.11.20 CMO (chapter B, article 2 § 5b).

    Question 12: What are the obligations of the specific businesses?

    These businesses are obliged not to reduce the number of their staff by dismissals for as long as their employees’ contracts are suspended, and in any case, until December 31, 2020. In case of a dismissal, such is invalid (Chapter B, Article 2 §1).

    They are also required to maintain the same number of jobs and with the same type of employment contracts, for a period equal to the total period of the suspension of their employees’ employment contracts. This obligation does not exist when there is an objective impossibility of fulfilling it, as in cases of businesses that by their form, type or activity have a specific operating time. The businesses are not obliged to replace those who have quit, retirees, the deceased and those employees whose employment contract expires during the above period (Chapter B, Article 2 §2).

     

    C. Special purpose remuneration

    Question 13: What is the amount of the special purpose remuneration? Who are its beneficiaries?

    Employees whose employment contracts are suspended are entitled to special purpose remuneration in proportion to the duration of the suspension of their employment contracts, based on the calculation of the amount of five hundred and thirty-four euros (€ 534.00) corresponding to thirty (30) days (Chapter C, article 1 §1). This remuneration burdens solely the state budget (Chapter C, article 1 §1).

    Question 14: Are there any burdens on the special purpose remuneration? Can it be confiscated?

    The special purpose remuneration is tax-free, inalienable and cannot be confiscated by the State or by third parties, it is not subject to any deductions, fees or contributions, it cannot be trapped nor can it be set off with certified debts to the tax authority and the State in general, municipalities, regional units, insurance funds or credit institutions (Chapter C, article 1 §2).

     

    The above mentioned CMO regulates issues within the first ten days of December that should have been provided for and regulated before the beginning of the month. It is, however, a small improvement (according to what is mentioned in the introduction) in relation to the negative experiences we have become accustomed to in the context of the second wave of the Pandemic.

    Let us hope that the management of the health crisis will become faster and more agile.

    Stavros Koumentakis
    Managing Partner

     

    P.S. A brief version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA Newspaper and makthes.gr (December 10, 2020).

     

    Disclaimer: the information provided in this article is not (and is not intended to) constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be offered by a competent attorney and after the latter takes into consideration all the relevant to your case data that you will provide them with. See here for more details.

  • Regarding the pandemic, leases and rents

    Regarding the pandemic, leases and rents

    Regarding the pandemic, leases, rents… (… and the failure of crisis management)

    Going through the second, this time tragic, phase of the pandemic, we are counting cases, deaths and, above all, hospitalizations in ICUs – which have already “overflowed”. We are also watching the State attempt, in a panic, to manage the unprecedented health, financial (and not only) crisis. And, at the moment, not succeeding. It is noteworthy that we hear ministerial and prime ministerial announcements, provisions for businesses and employees, provisions for taming the pandemic and crisis management. However: the legislative regulations are announced, press releases are circulated and we look in vain for the Government Gazettes where they are recorded. Law 4753 / 18.11.2020 has already been published (Government Gazette A’ 227 / 18.11.20), which attempts to manage rents and leases from September onwards. Quite late and sufficiently complicated.

    Let us attempt the partial decoding of the specific-also late, unfortunately, provisions (articles 33 & 34 of law 4753 / 18.11.2020):

    Section One: Leases concerning businesses that are (generally) affected by coronavirus and leases concerning their employees

    Pursuant to the regulations of §6 of the second article of the Legislative Decree of 20.3.2020 (A ’68), which was ratified by article 1 of law 4683/2020 (A’ 83) – the following apply from now on: with regard to specific reliefs:

    Question 1: What are the reductions in rents due by businesses affected by the coronavirus?

    The tenant of a professional lease of real estate which houses a business financially affected by the pandemic, may be released from the obligation to pay part of the due rent. The exemption cannot be less than 30% of the total rent for the months of September and October 2020.

    It should be noted that (: article two, §1, par. b & c, law 4683/20): the stamp duty and the VAT are recalculated and imposed on the rent resulting from the above partial payment. The partial non-payment of the rent of the first paragraph does not give rise to a right to terminate the contract against the tenant or any other civil claim.

    Question 2: Is a landlord and tenant agreement required to reduce the rent?

    The implementation of the 30% (minimum) reduction requires a relevant agreement between the lessor and the lessee. Their declaration related to the agreement is submitted electronically to the Independent Public Revenue Authority (AADE). The Commander of AADE determines the manner, the time as well as each specific issue for its submission.

    Question 3: Which businesses are under the provisions of the rent reduction?

    It has already been mentioned that the right to a reduction of at least 30% of the rent concerns leases of businesses affected by the pandemic.

    By decision of the Minister of Finance, after a suggestion of the Commander of AADE, the affected businesses are identified per sector and per month, as well as by any other relevant details.

    It is noted, however, that in case a business is located or has a branch in a regional unit which joined for at least fourteen (14) days in October 2020 the regional units with the characterization of a “very high” epidemiological level, the following (question 7 & etc.) applies.

    Question 4: Are there corresponding provisions for the reduction of the rent of the main residence of the employees employed by the affected businesses?

    Corresponding legal provisions with the above apply to the leases of the main residence in which the tenant is an employee or spouse or counterparty of a cohabitation agreement of an employee in a business affected (question 3). The reduction of the rent of the main residence (of at least 30% after a tenant-landlord agreement) concerns the months of September and October 2020. A necessary condition is that the employment contract of the tenant-employee has been temporarily suspended due to measures to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

    Question 5: Are there corresponding provisions for the reduction of the rent of the main residence of students-children of employees in the affected businesses?

    In the event that in order to cover the housing needs of a student of a higher education institution a house is rented (outside the place of their permanent residence) and, at the same time, said student is a child-dependent member of an employee (question 4) in an affected business, as mentioned above (question 3), an exemption from part of the total rent is possible. The exemption cannot be less than 30% of the total rent. Here, too, a relevant agreement between the lessor and the lessee must be in place and electronically submitted to AADE. The manner, the time, as well as any more specific issues for the submission of said declaration are determined by decision of the Commander of AADE.

     

    Section Two: Leases concerning businesses operating in an area with the characterization of a “very high” epidemiological level and their employees.

    Based on the already added §7 of the second article of the Legislative Decree of 20.3.2020 (A ’68), which was ratified by article 1 of law 4683/2020 (A’ 83) – the following apply from now on regarding the specific reliefs:

    Question 6: What is the relief for the rents of businesses that are based or have a branch in an area with its epidemiological level characterized as “very high”?

    The lessee of a professional lease of real estate in which a business is based, located or has a branch, and which is in a regional unit which joined for at least fourteen (14) days in October 2020 the regional units with the characterization of a “very high” epidemiological level and for which, in addition, the conditions mentioned below (question 8th) apply, are exempted from the obligation to pay 40% of the total rent for the month of October 2020.

    It should be noted that (: article two, §1, par. B & c, law 4683/20): the stamp duty and the VAT are recalculated and imposed on the rent resulting from the above partial payment. The partial non-payment of the rent of the first paragraph does not give rise to a right to terminate the contract against the tenant or any other civil claim.

    Question 7: Is an agreement between the landlord and the tenant required to reduce the rent?

    In this case, no agreement is required between the landlord and the tenant.

    Question 8: Which businesses are covered by the rent reduction arrangements?

    The arrangements for the mandatory reduction by 40% include the leases of real estate in which a business is established (in which the business either has its headquarters or has a branch) if said real estate is in a regional unit which joined for at least fourteen (14) days in October 2020 the regional units with the characterization of a “very high” epidemiological level. But not only that, in order for the mandatory reduction to apply, the business must also be under special and extraordinary measures regarding the (temporary) suspension of its operation for preventive or repressive reasons related to COVID-19 or, alternatively, it must be financially affected by the spread of COVID-19 coronavirus.

    The businesses affected by the above are identified by a decision of the Minister of Finance, after a suggestion of the Governor of the Independent Public Revenue Authority (AADE) per regional unit and per sector. A corresponding decision provides with any other necessary details for the implementation of this regulation.

    Question 9: Are there corresponding provisions for the reduction of the rent in the leases of the main residence of employees employed by the specific businesses?

    Corresponding legal provisions with the above apply to the leases of the main residence in which the tenant is an employee or spouse or counterparty of a cohabitation agreement of an employee in a business affected. The 40% reduction in the rent of the main residence concerns the month of October 2020. A necessary condition is that the employment contract of the tenant-employee has been temporarily suspended due to the measures to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

    Question 10: Are there corresponding provisions for the reduction of the rent in the leases of the main residence of students?

    If, in order to cover the housing needs of a student of a higher education institution, a house is rented (outside the place of their permanent residence) and, at the same time, said student is a child-dependent member of an employee (question 9) in an affected business, the tenant is exempted from 40% of the total for the month of October 2020. The manner, the time, as well as any more specific issues for the submission of said declaration are determined by decision of the Commander of AADE (Article 3 §5 Law 4684/2020).

     

    Section Three: Leases relating to businesses operating in an area of ​​”increased risk” or for which public health protection measures have been issued and leases of their employees.

    Based on the already added §8 of the second article of the Legislative Decree of 20.3.2020 (A’ 68), which was ratified by article 1 of law 4683/2020 (A’ 83) -the following apply from now on:

    Question 11: What is the relief for the rents of businesses located or having a branch in an area that is included in the epidemiological level of “increased risk”?

    The professional lease of real estate in which a business is based, located or has a branch in a regional unit, which is in a regional unit included in the epidemiological level of “increased risk” [or in any of the categories mentioned below (question 13o)], is released from the obligation to pay 40% of the total rent starting from November 2020.

    It should be noted here that (: article two, §1, par. b & c, law 4683/20): the stamp duty and the VAT are recalculated and imposed on the rent resulting from the above partial payment. The partial non-payment of the rent of the first paragraph does not give rise to a right to terminate the contract against the tenant or any other civil claim.

    Question 12: Is an agreement between the landlord and the tenant required for the reduction of the rent?

    In this case, no agreement between landlord and tenant is required.

    Question 13: Which businesses are covered by the arrangements regarding the reduction of rent?

    The arrangements for the mandatory reduction by 40% include the leases of real estate in which a business is established (in which the business either has its headquarters or has a branch) if said real estate is in a regional unit which is included in an epidemiological level of “increased risk”, or in a regional unit for which extraordinary public health protection measures pursuant to a regulatory act have been taken. But not only that, in order for the mandatory reduction to apply, the business must also be under special and extraordinary measures regarding the (temporary) suspension of its operation for preventive or repressive reasons related to COVID-19 or, alternatively, it must be financially affected by the spread of COVID-19 coronavirus.

    The businesses affected according to the above are identified by a decision of the Minister of Finance, after a suggestion of the Governor of the Independent Public Revenue Authority (AADE) per regional unit and per sector. A corresponding decision provides any other necessary details for the implementation of this regulation.

    Question 14: Are there corresponding provisions for the reduction of the rent in the leases of the main residence?

    Corresponding legal provisions with the above apply to the leases of the main residence in which the tenant is an employee or spouse or counterparty of a cohabitation agreement of an employee in a business affected. The 40% reduction in the rent of the main residence concerns November 2020 and onwards. A necessary condition is that the employment contract of the tenant-employee has been temporarily suspended due to the measures to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

    Question 15: Are there corresponding provisions for the reduction of the rent in the leases of the main residence of students?

    If, in order to cover the housing needs of a student of a higher education institution, a house is rented (outside the place of their permanent residence) and, at the same time, said student is a child-dependent member of an employee (question 14) in an affected business, the tenant is exempted from 40% of the total for the month of November 2020 onwards. The manner, the time, as well as any more specific issues for the submission of said declaration are determined by decision of the Commander of AADE (Article 3 §6 Law 4684/2020).

     

    Section Four: “Compensation” of landlords who receive a reduced rent by 40%

    Based on the regulations of article 34 of law 4753/2020 (A’ 227), the following apply:

    Question 16: Which landlords are entitled to a “refund” of part of the reduced rent?

    Beneficiary landlords are only natural persons who, from November onwards, receive a reduced rent of 40%, in accordance with provisions in the context of dealing with the effects of COVID-19 coronavirus.

    Question 17: What is the percentage of the “return” part of the loss of the reduced rent?

    The above (question 16th) landlords-natural persons are entitled to receive from the State half of their loss (ie 20% of the rent) from November 2020 onwards.

    Question 18: What is the procedure for the payment to the landlords of the 20% of the rent that they received only by 60%?

    Upon the recommendation of the Commander of AADE, the more specific procedural conditions, the cross-checking of data, the payment procedure and any other issues arising for the application of this will be determined by decision of the Minister of Finance…

     

    Section Five: Leases under the above provisions

    Question 19: In the category of professional / commercial leases which businesses are also included?

    When the above regulations cover professional leases, they also include the leases for the housing of canteens or cafés and other businesses that operate within premises owned or used by public services of Ministries or subleased by them, as well as inside buildings that house their services.

     

    As mentioned in the introduction, legislative regulations are announced, press releases are circulated and we are looking in vain for the Government Gazettes where they are recorded. There are three typical examples: Press releases of the Minister of Finance of 31.10.20 and 5.11.20 concerning announced and not yet implemented measures. Also: Common Ministerial Order of 13.11.20 (Government Gazette B ‘5048 / 16.11.20) which concerned, among other things, the possibility (!) of suspension of employment contracts “from 30/10/20 to 31/10/20” (!!!).

    It is easy to see that the government is called upon to manage an unprecedented, multi-layered crisis. But: The results do not look (nor are they) as successful as the ones in the first wave of the pandemic.

    The political opposition is resting.

    The press (essentially) is too…

    All of this, of course, seems like an unnecessary luxury at a time when hospitals in the “front-line” lack the basic materials to manage the many thousands of cases they are called upon to deal with in order to save, ultimately, human lives.

    Let us hope for the (as soon as possible) rapid reversal of the phenomenon.

    Let’s all work, without exception, in this direction.

    Everyone must take on their own responsibilities.-

    Stavros Koumentakis
    Managing Partner

     

    P.S. A brief version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA Newspaper and makthes.gr (November 29, 2020).

     

    Disclaimer: the information provided in this article is not (and is not intended to) constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be offered by a competent attorney and after the latter takes into consideration all the relevant to your case data that you will provide them with. See here for more details.

  • Vulnerable Groups and (tele)work in the time of the pandemic …

    Vulnerable Groups and (tele)work in the time of the pandemic …

    The issue of the (current) pandemic concerns everyone. But more so what concerns us is the risks we run – we all, after all, would like to reduce them. Teleworking is a step towards exactly that. This particular topic (of teleworking) has occupied us repeatedly (in our articles as well). Most recently, on the occasion of the Legislative Decree of 22.8.2020 (Government Gazette A ‘161 / 22.8.20) – [ratified by article 2 of law 4722/2020 (A’ 177) and supplemented by article 21], which attempted to manage the issue of  . However, this Legislative Decree was not complete: it neither identified the vulnerable groups, nor was it accompanied by a relevant Ministerial Order. It referred to a future CMO to be issued by the Ministers of Labor & Social Affairs and Health. It took two (2) whole months and two CMOs to clarify, to some extent, the issue.

    The agitation that it, meanwhile, created in businesses and employees was (unnecessarily) great.

     

    Employees vs Businesses

    Had employees have the choice they would all choose, probably without exception, teleworking. But not all businesses would. Businesses that do not adopt it as an option in general, receive heaps of requests from employees for the exceptional(?) approval of teleworking (“for them only”). The reasons put forward are, basically, of a medical nature. Sometimes they concern the employees themselves or their relatives. Sometimes they are a manifestation of the desire of employees to reduce their exposure to the risk of contracting the (sometimes deadly) virus. Moving with public transportation, moreover, raises reasonable concerns. The long coexistence with more (colleagues) does so too. Both the invoked reasons and relevant concerns are respected.

    But what is legally provided for? When is it mandatory for employees to request to telework? And when is it not?

     

    Let us try to decipher the relevant institutional framework.

    Question 1: Which employees belong to vulnerable groups?

    The employees who belong to the category of vulnerable groups are identified in the provision of article 1 of the CMO No. 37095/1436 [of the Ministers of Labor & Social Affairs and Health (Government Gazette B ‘4011 / 18.9.20)]. They are divided into two major categories: High and Intermediate Risk (Article 1.1). Detailed determination of the content of the specific categories as well as the relevant case study also takes place in the specific provision.

    It is noteworthy that “when an individual meets more than one criteria of the intermediate risk category, then they are automatically considered to belong to the High Risk group” (Article 1.2 37095/1436 CMO and Article 1 last paragraph of CMO No. 39363/1537 CMO [ of the Ministers of Labor & Social Affairs and Health (Government Gazette B ‘4262 / 30.9.20)]).

     

    Question 2: Who certifies and how the inclusion of an employee in a category of vulnerable groups?

    It is not enough for the employee to assure their employer that they belong to a specific category of vulnerable groups. Relevant certification is required. This certification takes place with a reasoned opinion of the doctor of a relevant specialty. The consulting physician can be either the therapist or a third “(public or private) Healthcare Facility for cases of special therapies such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy and immunotherapy”.

    However, it is important to note that in this opinion “the employee’s affiliation” to one of the aforementioned categories of high or intermediate risk should be precisely mentioned (article 2, 39363/1537 CMO). It is not enough to simply report the employee’s illness.

     

    Question 3: What right is recognized to employees belonging to vulnerable “High Risk” groups?

    Employees belonging to High Risk groups have the right to (request to) provide their work with the system of distance work (article 2.A.1 of 39363/1537 CMO). However, this is a right, not an obligation of the employee who belongs to the specific group.

    Therefore: an employee belonging to a High Risk group may exercise (or not exercise) his / her specific right. But even if they choose to not exercise it, the employer is not released from any obligation (ref.: 12th Question).

     

    Question 4: How does the employee inform the employer that they belong to a High Risk group and require applies for distance work?

    The employee’s request is forwarded “in a timely manner to the employer, by any appropriate means, such as telephone, e-mail or text message of a mobile phone” (article 2.A.2 of 39363/1537 CMO).

    However, it is not enough to submit the employee’s request to their employer. It is required to provide “within a reasonable time… a relevant medical certificate”. (article 2.A.3 of 39363/1537 CMO). This is, in essence, the opinion of their inclusion in the High Risk category -above 2nd Question).

     

    Question 5: What are the obligations of the employer regarding the employees who belong to a High Risk group?

    The nature of the work of the employee belonging to a High Risk group determines their ability (or not) to work remotely.

    If teleworking is possible, “the employer must accept the employee’s request” (article 2.A.4 of 39363/1537 CMO). In this case, the employee will continue, through teleworking, to provide their services to the employer.

     

    Question 6: What happens when teleworking of an employee belonging to a High Risk group proves impossible?

    Teleworking of an employee belonging to a High Risk group may prove impossible (because, for example, the employee provides manual labor). In this case “the employer must take measures so that the applicant employee belonging to a vulnerable group does not provide work for the execution of which they come in contact with the public”. (however, other employees in the same business are not considered as public).

    The employer is further obliged to “…consider, depending on the needs of the business, the possibility of temporary employment of the applicant employee in another job, in order to ensure the protection of their health”. On the other hand, “the employee must accept the… proposal of the employer, unless are unable to do so for a significant and serious reason.” The specific reason should be “… reported in writing to their employer”. (article 2.A.5 of 39363/1537 CMO).

     

    Question 7: Under what conditions (and for how long) is the employment contract of an employee belonging to a High Risk group suspended?

    Teleworking of an employee belonging to a High Risk group may prove impossible. It is also possible that the business’s efforts to employ them “in another job, in order to ensure the protection of their health” will be fruitless. In this case, the employer informs, in writing, the specific employee “for the reasons of inability to implement them and suspends their employment contract” (article 2.A.6 of 39363/1537 CMO).

    The employer has this right regardless of the NACE Revision 2 classification of their business activity. This suspension may not extend beyond 31.12.20 (article 3 of 39363/1537 CMO).

     

    Question 8: Do employees who belong to a High Risk group receive a salary or compensation and their contracts are suspended?

    These employees (belonging to a High Risk group and whose employment contracts are suspended) are not required to provide their work to the business in which they work. Nor is their employer, logically, obliged to pay them a salary. To the extent that these employees are not bound by a contract of employment with another employer, they are entitled to special purpose remuneration (Article 4§1 of 39363/1537 CMO).

     

    Question 9: What is the amount and what is the treatment of the special purpose remuneration?

    The special purpose remuneration “…is calculated per month in proportion to the days during which the employment contract of the above employees is suspended, based on the calculation of the amount of… 534.00 euros corresponding to thirty (30) calendar days”. The specific employees “…are provided with full insurance coverage on their nominal salary, for the days when the employment contract is suspended” (article 4§2 of 39363/1537 CMO).

    Special purpose remuneration “… is tax-free, non-transferable and cannot be confiscated … it shall not be subject to any withholding tax, fee or levy, including the special solidarity levy…, cannot be siezed and offset by certified debts to the tax administration and the State in general, municipalities, districts, insurance funds or credit institutions” (article 4§3 of 39363/1537 CMO).

     

    Question 10: What is the procedure for receiving special purpose remuneration?

    The payment of the special purpose remuneration presupposes the submission and registration of relevant statements related to the issue to the ERGANI platform by both the employers and the employees (article 5 of 39363/1537 CMO).

     

    Question 11: What is the treatment of employees belonging to Intermediate Risk groups?

    The employer who is notified of the employee’s inclusion in an Intermediate Risk group, is initially obliged to investigate the possibility of teleworking. In case this is not possible, the employee is temporarily employed in a job in which they do not come in contact with the public (article 2.B of 39363/1537 CMO).

    In any case: there is no issue of suspension of the employment contract of an employee who belongs to an Intermediate Risk group.

     

    Question 12: What are the General Protection Measures that the business should take anyway?

    An employee belonging to a vulnerable group (whether High or Intermediate Risk) is entitled to exercise (or not) their right to work remotely or to provide their services away from the public.

    However, the employer is obliged, in any case, “to take increased protection measures, based on the occupational risk assessment, as well as to fully implement the legislation on health and safety at work”. They are also obliged to comply with the more specific provisions “governing issues of implementation of public health measures, such as social distancing and using a mask, in workplaces, by sector and place of economic activity” (Article 2.C of 39363/1537 CMO).

    The (of great significance) additional importance and value of the occupational risk assessment should be stressed at this point. This assessment proves, once again, extremely important. Even more so, the alignment of all businesses with it.

     

    Question 13:  What is the duration of these measures?

    The period of validity of the specific, aforementioned, measures extends until 31.12.20 (article 6 of 39363/1537 CMO).

     

    All the measures taken since the beginning of the pandemic had / have aimed to ensure the protection of life and health.

    The Joint Ministerial Orders that define the meaning of the vulnerable groups but also the treatment of the employees that are part of them, move in the specific direction. They adequately aim to secure the specific goods (: of life and health) of the employees.

    But they are also aiming for something more important: crystalizing the balance between the reasonable needs of employees who belong to vulnerable groups and those of the businesses that employ those employees.

    They achieve it, to a sufficient degree.-

    Stavros Koumentakis
    Managing Partner

     

    P.S. A brief version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA Newspaper (October 11, 2020).

     

    Disclaimer: the information provided in this article is not (and is not intended to) constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be offered by a competent attorney and after the latter takes into consideration all the relevant to your case data that you will provide them with. See here for more details.

  • Coronavirus, businesses and personal data

    Coronavirus, businesses and personal data

    Coronavirus, businesses and personal data (: safeguarding life & health or personal data);

     

    Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is, without a doubt, a visitor-not a householder. As such it will sooner or later (hopefully sooner) say goodbye. And so will the relevant pandemic (COVID-19). The consequences, however, of their visit are already leaving their mark. Our daily lives have changed dramatically. We are even forced to keep distances from loved ones, in order to protect them. And/or to protect ourselves. At the business level, the employer has an obligation to take appropriate measures to protect the lives and health of their employees. To what extent? Is it right, for example, to use a thermometer on employees when the latter enter the workplace? On the customers? And the occupational physician is obliged to inform the “boss” about the (“suspicious”) symptoms of one of the employees? Is it important to protect the personal data of the sick employee or the life and health of others?

     

    The (relative) questions that already concern employers and businesses.

    A series of questions concern all of us. Some of them, coming from employers / businesses, have been taken into account by the Personal Data Protection Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “DPA”). On the one hand, it refers to the employers’ obligations to ensure the health of their employees (and of course of themselves). On the other hand, to their obligation to comply with the legislation on personal data. Indicatively:

    (a) Can a thermometer be used on those who enter the business’s premises?

    (b) Is it permissible to require the completion of a questionnaire on the health status of employees or their relatives?

    (c) Is it permissible to require the completion of a questionnaire on a recent travel history of employees or their relatives in a foreign country with an increased risk of coronavirus transmission, etc.?

    (d) Can the rest of the employees be informed about the event and/or the information of an already sick employee or of the latter’s relatives?

     

    The obligation to safeguard the life and health of employees

    In our first article of the series of articles regarding the above topic (Coronavirus and Businesses: a first decalogue for their operation and employment relations) we referred to the basic obligations of employers to ensure the life and health of employees.

    These obligations are neither theoretical nor vague. They derive from the existing institutional framework (mainly: the Labor Code for the Health & Safety of Employees [ratified by the first article one of law 3850/2010 (Government Gazette 84 A ‘)].

    One is the main pillar of this institutional framework: “the sole responsibility of the employer, who is obliged to ensure … the health of employees in all aspects of work, to take measures to ensure the health … of third parties.”(Art. 42, par. 1. Labor Code for the Health & Safety of Employees). In fact, within the framework of their responsibilities, the employer must not only take the necessary measures to protect the health and safety of employees, but also to supervise their implementation (art. 42, par. 5 and 6c Labor Code for the Health & Safety of Employees).

    And all this is not enough!

    The employer must have at their disposal a written assessment of the safety and health risks at work. The written occupational hazard assessment should have already been updated on COVID-19 risk and prevention measures.

    The Ministry of Labor made the relevant reminders in time. Among them, with the guidelines and prevention measures in the workplace by the new Coronavirus. Quite early, too, with its document No. 94243 / 09.03.2020, it focused on the obligations of businesses and employees associated with the current pandemic.

     

    Ensuring health in the workplace – the position of the Authority

    The DPA felt the need to address the issue of the protection against the pandemic and the impact on personal data.

    In its Guidelines for the Processing of Personal Data when managing COVID-19 (hereinafter referred to as the “Guidelines”) it accepts – with regard to the private sector – that:

    (a) The employer is obliged to ensure the health and safety of employees by taking the necessary relevant protective measures to avoid the occurrence of serious, immediate and unavoidable risks. They must also guarantee a safe and healthy work environment with the help of employees.

    (b) Employees are obliged to comply with the rules introduced for their health and safety. Also, for the health and safety of those affected by their actions or omissions. In this context, they are also obliged to immediately report to the employer and / or the occupational physician all situations that may be considered to constitute an immediate and serious risk to safety and health.

     

    What is the position of the DPA regarding the obligations of businesses to secure personal data in relation to the pandemic?

    The DPA accepts that:

    (a) Employers are entitled to the processing of personal data of their employees in order to protect their health. This processing is done on the basis of the General Regulation for the Protection of Personal Data (hereinafter: “Regulation”). And, of course, in the context of the directions given by the competent authorities for the implementation of the measures decided by the Legislative Acts (“LDs”).

    (b) Information relating to the health of an individual (or to the provision of health care to them) constitutes a special category of personal data. This data is subject to a stricter protection regime.

    In this data category which is under special protection -sensitive data- are included (indicatively): (a) The fact that a person is ill-an employee e.g. (which is named or which, at least, can be identified), (b) Their stay at home due to illness, (c) The finding of signs of illness, possibly through their clinical picture (cough, runny nose, fever above normal .etc.).

    On the other hand, there is other information that might be of interest in the current pandemic. Indicatively: If someone recently traveled to a foreign country were coronavirus is extensively spread or if the concerned employee or associate is ill or has been infected with coronavirus. The specific information does not concern the health of the specific subject -eg employee. Therefore, these are not sensitive personal data. But they could possibly constitute personal data.And that too is protected.

     

    What is the scope of application of the legislation on Personal Data?

    The legislation on the protection of personal data applies (article 2 par. 1 of the Regulation and article 2 of law 4624/2019) in two cases. Specifically, when the following take place: (a) automated (total or partial) processing of personal data, as well as (b) non-automated processing of such data, which are included or will be included in an archiving system.

    In the above context, verbal information that the data subject (eg an employee is ill with coronavirus or that his or her body temperature has been measured to be higher than normal) is indeed personal data. The relevant legislation, however, does not apply when the above information is not included in a system: (a) with completely (or partial) automated processing or, alternatively, (b) non-automated processing if they are included (or will be included) in an archiving system.

    However, it is important to emphasize that the scope of the Regulation is determined in a binding manner (Article 2 §1). It is not possible to extend it by national legislation.

    Needless to say, such an expansion (or expansion attempt) does not exist in our country.

     

    What should the employer do?

    The controller, in this case the employer, carries out the (necessary and in accordance with the Regulation) personal data processing operations. Always in the direction of achieving the goals pursued each time.

    At this stage (as far as Covid-19 is concerned), it is not possible to exclude any processing as prohibited in advance. Furthermore, the GDPR provides the legal basis for processing permitted under Article 6. In particular, in cases where it is necessary to safeguard the vital interest of the data subject or other individuals (subsection d’), as well as for reasons of public interest (subsection e΄). However, since these are data of a special category (health), processing is exceptionally permitted (art. 9). Among other things, when “processing is necessary for reasons of public interest in the field of public health” (par. 2 subsection i΄).

    The data is such that what matters (and of course we are all called upon to preserve it) is human life and health. With respect, at the same time, to the legislation on Personal Data.

    Any processing by the employer is governed by the principle of accountability. In other words, in the present case: No matter how the employer handles personal data they should always be able to prove their legal processing.

    Gathering a large amount of information is easy and ultimately very cost-effective. The choice of hardware that cave the capacity of holding a large volume of data is very easy. But when it comes to collecting personal data, we must pursue our own self-restraint. Their collection should be limited to personal data that is absolutely necessary. That is, those related exclusively to the intended purpose – in this case, the prevention of the spread of corona and, consequently, the protection of the health of those in the workplace (principles of purpose and restriction of processing, in combination with the principle of proportionality), taking into account the principle of secure processing (especially information confidentiality). And all this through the adoption of the necessary technical and organizational security measures.

    In fact, it is possible that in the case of large-scale processing of sensitive health data, it may be necessary to carry out an impact assessment. That is, to assess, before processing, the consequences of personal data processing operations.

    The collection and processing of personal data that are sensitive and constitute a restriction of rights of individuals should take place very sparingly. The controller (in this case the employer) should always make sure that the relevant legal requirements are met. Especially the principle of proportionality. The measures they will eventually take must be the least burdensome – since of course any other (less burdensome) measure will have been ruled out as inappropriate.

    It would be easy for us to slip, especially under the current circumstances, into a systematic, continuous and generalized collection of personal data. We could, perhaps, consider very useful and safe the creation and continuous renewal of a record on which we would keep track of the development of the health of each of the employees. The creation of such a record, however, according to the DPA, “could hardly be described as consistent with the principle of proportionality”.

     

    The ability of sick employees to disclose the status of their health.

    Things are very different when patients who are already suffering from coronary heart disease (employees in this case) voluntarily disclose their state of health. In this case we have a different (legal) basis for processing specific health data (Article 9 §2 par. e of the Regulation). It is always sufficient that the principles of the Regulation and any special provisions of national law (including the LDs) are complied with.

     

    The ability (?) of employers to notify third parties on the health status of their sick employees.

    Is it permissible or not to disclose to third parties information on the health status of data subjects (here employees) by the controllers (here the employers)?

    According to the DPA, “it is not permissible if it creates a climate of prejudice and stigma, and if there is a chance it will act as a deterrent to the observance of the measures announced by the competent public authorities, thus ultimately opposing their effectiveness”. And this, even if it is initially carried out in the context of the regulations of the existing legal framework.

    The Regulation sets guidelines. It goes without saying that it would not be possible, on a case-by-case basis, to regulate each case involving personal data. Nor does it answer, on a case-by-case basis, specific questions.

    However, in its preamble, the Regulation (Reasoning 46) accepts the processing of personal data as useful when “it is necessary for humanitarian purposes, including for monitoring epidemics and their spread”.

    Following, defining public interest, it accepts the processing of sensitive data “… for the prevention or control of communicable diseases and other serious health threats” (reasoning paragraph 52). Reasonable thoughts which, while guiding the employer and the business, do not relieve them of their obligations.

     

    The employer and the businesses have specific obligations to ensure health in the workplace. Of course, the protection of personal data of their employees (as well).

    The questions asked are many and serious.

    Answers cannot be given in advance to most of them. The DPA avoids giving completely specific answers and directions.

    Its position is that “The Authority reminds that the controller carries out the necessary and in accordance with Articles 5 and 6 of the GDPR, acts of personal data processing to achieve the intended objectives, without being it being impossible to in advance rule any act of processing as prohibited, especially at this critical and unprecedented time and if the conditions included in nos. 1-2 thoughts of the present. It is self-evident that this elaboration takes place in the context of the principle of accountability. ”

    In other words: do what you access as right (“the situation is difficult”) but, you know, “I may ask you to plead your case.”

    The assessment of each case is left to each business, to the DPO and its consultants.

    However, there is no doubt that behind every measure taken, under the current circumstances, there should only be one goal by the employer / business: The protection of the life and health of the employees.

    With respect, of course, to the legislation on personal data.

    With even greater respect, however, for the lives and health of their people.

    stavros-koumentakis

    Stavros Koumentakis
    Senior Partner

     

    Disclaimer: the information provided in this article is not (and is not intended to) constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be offered by a competent attorney and after the latter takes into consideration all the relevant to your case data that you will provide them with. See here for more details.

  • Coronavirus: the invisible(;) enemy of jobs

    Coronavirus: the invisible(;) enemy of jobs

    Coronavirus: the invisible (?) enemy of jobs (: dismissal prevention measures)

    I. PREAMBLE

    1. The pandemic COVID-19 is in full swing.

    Its end is not, in any case, visible.

    The global health crisis is, for all of us, unprecedented. It will inevitably lead the world economy to a recession. And, of course, the national economy as well.

    The vast majority of businesses are experiencing the dramatic consequences of the pandemic. Entrepreneurs (and those with corresponding responsibilities) are looking (sometimes desperately) for ways to survive.

    The most important challenge we all must face is to safeguard life and health.

    Immediately after: the survival of the national economy, of the businesses. Last, unfortunately, in order: the survival of employment relations.

    In our country, soon after the confirmation of the first cases, there has been significant turmoil in the labour market (one could more accurately call it panic).

    2. The administrative measure of suspension of operation of specific businesses (: necessary to prevent the spread of the virus) consequently resulted in a large number of redundancies.

    March is already showing a negative balance in the labour market. According to the government, layoffs exceeded 40.000 in the first two weeks of March. According to the opposition, 110.000. The numbers are dramatically high.

    Stopping the phenomenon constitutes a national emergency. Legislative intervention has been necessary to achieve the halt. A Legislative Decree was issued on the 20.3.2020  (Government Gazette A 68 / 20.3.2020) –Emergency measures to address the consequences of the COVID-19 coronavirus spread, to support society and to ensure the smooth functioning of the market … This Decree introduces, inter alia, new regulations to employment relations. It introduces measures to prevent dismissals and suspension of employment relations.

    3. The specific measures (preventing dismissals and suspension of employment relations) concern:

    (a) Businesses whose operations have been temporarily prohibited.

    (b) Businesses which operate in sectors that (according to the Ministry of Finance) are severely affected by the pandemic.

    The above Legislative Decree has already been analysed in a previous article (: “Coronavirus and Business: The Second Decalogue For Businesses and Employment Relations“).

    However, it is necessary to take a more careful look into saving as many jobs as possible.

    For the benefit of the national economy and businesses. And, of course, for the benefit of the employees and the community as a whole.

     

    II. THE MEASURES

    1. Employment relations with businesses suspending their operation (by decision of a public authority)

    (a) Suspension of operations

    Enterprises operating in specific sectors, which have been placed under a temporary ban or have been suspended by decision of the Administrative Authority (e.g.- student tutoring centers, private schools, retail outlets).

    The financial blow they suffer is unquestionable.

    The first (reasonable) thought of those responsible was to mitigate the economic impact. The reduction of expenditure. Especially of the wage costs.

    (b) The prohibition (and invalidity) of dismissals

    In order to halt dismissals, businesses whose operation was suspended were prohibited by law to dismiss their employees.

    The abovementioned (under I) Legislative Decree stated, in particular, that: “Businesses – employers who suspended their operation by order of a public authority, and for as long as the COVID-19 measures are in place, shall be obliged not to reduce their staff by termination of employment contracts ”(Art. 11 par.1(a)).

    Nevertheless, in the case of non-compliance and termination of employment contracts (from the part of the business concerned), the invalidity of such is provided for (Article 11 par.1 (b)). The nullity of dismissals is retroactive. It, retroactively, covers those dismissals that have taken place from the 18th of March.

    (c) The “reward” to balance out the prohibition of dismissals

    In return for the above (under b) prohibition of dismissals, the aforementioned companies are not required to pay wages at the time of suspension of their operation.

    Their employees, on the other hand, are entitled to emergency financial assistance (provided for by the state) of € 800 (special purpose remuneration).

     

    2. The operation of businesses with safe operation personnel

    The measure providing for the safe operation personnel is another measure to prevent dismissals. It concerns (as per the Legislative Decree of 20.3.2020) all businesses. Information leaks from the Ministry of Labour imply that the Ministerial Decision that will provide for the details of implementation of this measure will limit its scope. Specifically: that it will only concern the businesses that are operating in the sectors that are on the Ministry’s list of the sectors affected. This measure will provide for fewer days (and therefore weeks) of employment per month, alternating between working days (or full weeks) and non-working days, at the decision of the employer. At its core, it is therefore similar to the measure of a unilaterally imposed rotational work. However, the conditions of the implementation of this measure laid down in the Decree (Article 9) significantly distinguish this measure from that of the unilaterally imposed rotational work.

    In particular, the conditions for its implementation concern: (a) The minimum monthly employment of employees. (b) The minimum number of employees who may be subject to the measure. (c) The maximum duration of the measure.

    Specifically:

    (a) The employee who will work as Safe Operation Personnel shall be employed for a minimum of two (2) weeks per month. Continuously or intermittently.

    (b) At least 50% of the staff of the business must be designated as safe operation personnel. Therefore, the business should employ the employees that have not been designated as safe operation personnel full time. The exact organization of work time can be determined on a weekly base.

    (c) The implementation of the measure of operation of a business with safe operation personnel cannot be permanent. This measure can be implemented until 20.9.20, at the latest.

    At the same time, the employer has two obligations.

    The first concerns the declaration of the implementation of the measure on ERGANI. It must be declared at the end of each month.

    The second obligation is of utmost importance. The employer who chooses to operate their business with safe operating personnel is required to retain their employees.

    Details are expected to be determined by a decision of the Minister of Labour and Social Affairs.

     

    3. The transfer of personnel to companies within the same group

    It is an additional measure in the (national) effort to prevent redundancies.

    Under the current legal framework, the company is entitled to transfer its staff to another company of the same Group (to which it belongs). The courts have already dealt with this issue, despite the measure being newly introduced. The Supreme Court accepted the possibility of employing employees in different companies in the same group. And that, no matter which company in the Group is the employer. We have already analysed this issue in a previous article (: employing employees in companies of the same group)

    Article 10 of the Legislative Decree of 20.3.20 (expressly) provides for the possibility of transferring staff to companies within the same Group. This provision has limited application. It concerns, in particular:

    (a) Companies affected by the Covid-19 pandemic

    (b) Companies whose operation has been suspended by the competent authorities in response to the pandemic

    The Legislative Decree imposes specific obligations on the companies concerned.

    The first obligation is the existence of a written agreement between the companies.

    The second requires the maintenance, in total, of the same number of employees as before the transfer.

    Details are expected to be determined by the Ministerial Decisions to be issued.

     

    4. Employment relations in businesses that are (significantly) affected by the pandemic

    (a) Affected sectors and the regulation of employment relations

    On March 20, the Ministry of Finance announced the classes of the NACE Revision 2 affected by the spread of coronavirus. The list is constantly expanding.

    Although these businesses are allowed to operate, unfortunately, given the circumstances, they run at a low capacity. In order to avoid dismissals, as a result of the reduction of their business activity, the option to suspend part or all of their employment contracts was also provided to these businesses. Specifically:

    (b) Suspension of employment contracts and related obligations of the employer

    (i) The individual characteristics of the suspension of the employment contract

    This is a measure which is introduced in the Greek legal order for the first time. It is similar to unpaid leave. However, during its implementation, it does not affect the acquired rights of employees (as this time seems to be taken into account, for example, when calculating the time of service and retirement). In this case, the maximum duration of the measure is one month. However, it can be extended (provided a relevant JMD is issued).

    (ii) The option

    Affected businesses have the option to choose whether or not to suspend (part or all of) their employment contracts. However, if they so choose, the termination of employment contracts is expressly prohibited. And that goes for all their staff.

    (iii) The prohibition and invalidity of the redundancies

    Nevertheless, in the case of non-compliance and termination of employment contracts (from the part of the business concerned), the invalidity of such is provided for

    (iv) Maintaining jobs

    In addition to prohibiting the termination of employment contracts for undertakings which opt for the suspension measure, there is an additional, quite important, obligation. The Decree provides that “… after the expiry of the suspension of the employment contracts, they are required to maintain the same number of jobs for a period equal to that of the suspension”. In other words: even if the aforementioned businesses fire an employee, they must hire another employee in its place. And this goes for as long as the suspension lasts and for a period equal to that, after the suspension expires.

    Accordingly, in the event of an expiration of a fixed-term employment contract (and therefore of its automatic termination), there are two possibilities. Either its renewal will have to take place, or another employee has to be hired at the place of the one whose contract expired.

    (v) Special purpose remuneration

    Employees of companies that make use of the option to suspend employment contracts are also entitled to a special purpose remuneration.

    According to the MD No. 13031 / D1.4551 (Government Gazette 994 / 23-3-2020), employers who declare to ERGANI employees whose contract is suspended, should state that their core business activity has been suspended (!). This is despite the fact that this requirement does not derive from the relevant Legislative Decree. We want to believe that this is, obviously, an unfortunately worded text.

     

    III. What about the dismissals that have already taken place?

    The validity of the dismissals that took place until 17/3/2020 is not affected. However, dismissed employees (or employees who resigned), within the period from 1 to 20 March, are entitled to the special purpose remuneration (article 11 par. 2B. (b) Decree of 20.3.20).

     

    IV. Special purpose remuneration and employer obligations

    (i) Special purpose remuneration and its characteristics

    Suspension of business and suspension of employment creates a new reality in employment relations. For reasons of force majeure, no service is provided by employees. As a result, the salaries cannot be paid (by the employer). It was necessary to provide employees with emergency financial aid. This is what the “special purpose remuneration” is. It is of the amount of 800€ and it covers 45 days.

    The cost of paying the above compensation is covered by the state budget. And so is the insurance coverage of employees (article 11 par.2B (f) Decree of 20.3.20).

    It is also important to note that the special purpose remuneration cannot be seized and it is tax-free. Also: it is not offset against any debt.

    (ii) The (related) obligations of employers

    The employers must submit the Analytical Periodical Statements of their employees, whose contracts have been suspended. The cost of their full insurance coverage is calculated on their nominal wages.

    In order for the employee to receive the special purpose remuneration, the employer must follow a specific procedure as provided for in the Legislative Decree (article. 11 par. 2.C. a, b, c, d) and the MD No. 13031 / D1.4551 (Government Gazette 994 / 23-3-2020).

    In particular, the employer is required to submit an official declaration to ERGANI, mentioning the employees whose employment contracts are suspended: (a) either because of the prohibition of their operation, ordered by a public authority, (b) or because of the utilization of the measure of suspension of employment contracts by the affected business.

    In addition, the employer is required to include in the official declaration those employees whose employment contracts have been terminated from 1 to 20.3.20. As already discussed, the provision of the Legislative Decree in this case concerns contracts terminated: (a) either following a complaint by the employer, (b) or because of the employee’s resignation.

    The employer is obliged to notify the employee within the day of submission of the official declaration. The notification shall be on paper or electronically. It must, in any case, include the registration number of the relevant act on the ERGANI platform.

    (iii) Violation of the employer’s obligations

    Failure to submit the above official declaration by the employer does not have serious, damaging, consequences. In particular, an employer who fails to provide an official declaration will not enjoy the suspension measures of facilitations or instalments or partial payment facilities of any type of certified debt they may owe to the State.

     

    V. In conclusion

    The decade of the financial crisis brought a heavy blow to entrepreneurship.

    Businesses are called upon to face a new crisis.

    Probably deeper.

    We hope it will be a short-term one.

    Employment relations are being re-tested.

    The state is doing, at least for now imperfectly, its duty. It protects employees to a significant extent. It is assisting some of the affected businesses.

    The pandemic is inevitably linked to an economic downturn. We are already experiencing it. We hope it will also be short-lived.

    The protection of employment relations (sooner or later) will decline. And it must. Let dismissals be the last measure employers will adopt. All the more mild measures continue to exist, uninterrupted.

    Employers can always make other choices before deciding on making dismissals: (a) conversion of full-time to part-time employment contracts; (b) the agreement (or enforcement) of rotational work (or) the agreement (or enforcement) of suspension

    And, of course, those discussed above.

    The negative balance of employment in March will hopefully be a small (bitter) bracket.

    For the benefit of the national economy and growth.

    stavros-koumentakis

    Stavros Koumentakis
    Senior Partner

     

    Disclaimer: the information provided in this article is not (and is not intended to) constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be offered by a competent attorney and after the latter takes into consideration all the relevant to your case data that you will provide them with. See here for more details.

  • Teleworking: a modern and, under conditions, valuable form of work

    Teleworking: a modern and, under conditions, valuable form of work

    Teleworking: A Modern and, Under Conditions, Valuable Form of Work

    I. Preamble

    (1) Beginning of the 1st millennium BC: The galley appeared. It was mainly propelled with paddles. It was used until the early 19th century. We are all familiar with the (cinematic) images of the dozens of paddlers who, with their coordinated actions, were moving huge, for the time, ships.

    All together. Simultaneously. Inside the gallery.

    We can be relatively certain that none of the puddlers (: either they were free or slaves) would then think of offering their services remotely.

    (2) Early 20th century AD: Henry Ford adopts an innovation at his factory in Detroit in 1914: the production line. The production line simultaneously employs a homogeneous workforce. The work consisted of individual simple and repetitive movements that served mass production.

    All together. Simultaneously. Inside the factory.

    We can, in this case, also be fairly certain that none of the employees at the Ford plant would even consider offering their services remotely.

    (3) March 11, 2020: WHO declares the COVID-19 infection, caused by Coronavirus-2019 SARS-CoV-2, a pandemic. Businesses must continue to operate. Employees should not be at risk. (And they should not cause further dissemination of the virus). Ways for employees to remotely provide their services were sought. There was already the relevant experience. Teleworking is becoming widely known and widely used…

     

    II. The Appearance of Labor Law and the Individual Forms of Labor

    Industrialization has undoubtedly been the reason for the emergence of Labor Law. The Fordian model of production (seemingly) played a decisive role in its formation. (That is, the system that was adopted by the aforementioned Henry Ford).

    The descriptions in the preamble of the present article is quite inconsistent with what is happening today. Industrial production seems to be rapidly replaced by service industries.

    Flexible forms of work are steadily gaining ground over the traditional ‘full-time, part-time employment contract’. Full-time and/or part-time employment contracts are not uncommon. Nor are rotational work employment contracts.

    The development of technology is more rapid by the day. New forms of work are introduced as technology evolves. Both employees and businesses are seriously concerned with those new forms. And of course so is the legal world. Outsourcing, networking, crowdsourcing and telecommuting are a reality. This particular reality cannot be ignored. On the contrary, we must utilize it. And now, because of the critical situation we are living in, we are urged to take advantage of it immediately.

     

     III. Coronavirus And Teleworking…

    Telework has been at the forefront in recent days. In our country as well.

    Legislative Decree of 11 March 2020 introduced “Urgent measures to counter the negative effects of the occurrence of COVID-19 coronavirus and the need to limit its spread”.

    The Decree provides that: “The employer may decide that the work provided by an employee at the place of work as per their individual employment contract shall be carried out in accordance with the system of distance work.” In fact, the Decree provides the possibility of extending the time of application of the above extraordinary and provisional measure, “by joint decision of the Ministers of Finance, Labor and Social Affairs and Health” (Article 4 par. 2), after 10.04.2020.

    Teleworking is part of the wider context of distance working. Part of it is teleworking at home. This way of working thus achieves the twofold purpose of: (i) The possibility of employees to stay at home. (ii) The continuation of the employment of the employee.

    In emergency situations (such as the one we live in because of the coronavirus), teleworking achieves: the continuation of the employee’s job, ensuring the continued operation of the employer-business, the elimination (or at least, reduction) of both employer and employees’ financial loss.

     

    IV. Teleworking And Its Individual Forms.

    Teleworking can take the form of full-time or part-time employment. It utilizes IT and communications. It makes it possible for the employee to provide services at a location other than the location of their employer.

    Teleworking comes in many forms. Its individual forms are (also) identified by the place the work is offered. Based on this criterion, the following forms of teleworking are encountered, inter alia:

    (a) Home-Based Telework: As already mentioned above (under III), due to the emergency caused by the pandemic, this is the most appropriate way of providing work. We would even dare to add: it also is the most common one globally. This is the main and most widely used form of teleworking. It is seen as a development of traditional, home-based work. The teleworker, in this case, uses their home as their base for their work. Their home instead of their employer’s premises.

    It is important to note, however, that the employer’s liability for an accident at work is not waived in the case of home-based teleworking. In this context, it is necessary for the employee to obtain a statement on the safety of their work from home. A relevant “Declaration” document should be signed by the employee and submitted to the employer.

    (b) Mobile Teleworking: The teleworker does not, in this case, have a fixed working base – e.g. their house. They can be in a number of locations / establishments, which constitute the place where their work is performed (eg the provision by the employee-accountant of corresponding services to the premises of their employee’s [(accounting) firm] clients. This is a widely used form of teleworking in the US. It is already developing in our country.

    (c) Telecentres: These are small workstations – premises with appropriate equipment to perform the necessary work. Telecentres are owned by the business-employer. They are smaller holdings, away from the employer’s central location and close to the workers’ residence. At telecentres, more teleworkers have the opportunity to offer their work.

    (d) Functional Relocation: This regards whole sections of the business, which are detached from its headquarters. These sections are established separately. However, teleworkers have direct access to the company’s systems. They show a significant resemblance to telecentres. Their main difference, however, is the fact that telecentres can concern employees from different parts of the business. On the other hand, functional relocation relates to the relocation of an entire division (or entire divisions) of a business and to all employees of that division. For example, the Customer Service Department of a business can be functionally relocated. It is not uncommon for this department to be located at a place outside of the businesses headquarters.

    (e) Telecottages: This form first appeared in the Scandinavian countries. Telecottages resemble telecentres. However, they do differ on an essential point. Teleworking sites are owned by local communities and not by a business, thus providing public access to computers. Their broader purpose is to educate residents of remote regions.

     

    V. Advantages of Teleworking

    There is no questions on the importance and positive effects of teleworking.

    In times of crisis, such as the present one, the positive effects abound. Indicatively: for public health, for the economy and, of course, for business. But even under normal circumstanses, teleworking undoubtedly offers a multitude of advantages. These benefits apply to the employee, the employer, and even the community as a whole. In a nutshell:

    (a) For the Employee: Teleworking helps employees organize their own working time. Protect their personal health. Save time and cost of moving to (and from) their workplace. It is an opportunity for people with serious family responsibilities or with health problems to (re)integrate into the labor market. It is also an important weapon for the (re)integration into the labor market of people with disabilities. In addition: for the removal of discrimination against them.

    (b) For the employer: Teleworking is an important tool for reducing the cost of the business. In particular, the costs relating to the establishment and maintenance of the necessary facilities. Further, the employer, through teleworking, is expanding the number of its eligible employees. Their place of residence is no hindrance to teleworking. Also: absenteeism is not uncommon in the context of (regular) employment. Some of these are linked to objective reasons (eg strikes on public transport or mild illness). Such difficulties in teleworking do not constitute a reason for not providing work. The employer can also look forward to increased employee productivity as work is provided in the familiar environment of their home.

    (c) For the community: Reducing employees’ mobility clearly has an environmental impact. In addition, teleworking can contribute to the development of remote areas. Urbanization for professional reasons is, of course, reduced through teleworking. Lastly: it protects public health.

     

    VI. Cons of Teleworking

    Teleworking does not, of course, have only advantages. Some of its disadvantages are:

    (a) For the Employee: When the place of residence is the same as that of the workplace, the teleworker is, in principle, isolated from their colleagues. And, more broadly, from the community. Their professional life strongly interferes with their private life, as the relevant boundaries are broken. Also: the teleworker is (potentially) on a permanent basis available to their employer. The potential for collective organization and action of teleworkers is subsiding.

    (b) For the Employer: When work is not provided at the employer’s premises, the employer loses significant control. The ability to monitor employees is limited to the result of their work. Also: business data, which the teleworker needs to use, is disseminated outside the secure, internal, business networks. Along with whichever risks this entails. Finally, the employer is obliged to support technical equipment in an indefinitely wide geographic scope.

     

    VII. The Legal Status of Telecommunication

    One would expect that there would be comprehensive legislation on teleworking. However, this is not the case. The relevant legislation is incomplete.

    1. The EU provision for telework: The signing of a framework agreement

    (a) European countries, attempting to adapt to developments, signed on 16.07.2002 a Framework Agreement on telework. This agreement sought to close the legislative gap for this type of work. Also, the (relative) modernization of labor law. This is because teleworking had already been evaluated as a means of modernizing labor. The purpose of this Framework Agreement was to reconcile the private and professional lives of teleworkers. Providing greater autonomy in their work.

    However, the Framework Agreement on telework did not take the form of a Directive. Its implementation has been left to the initiative of each social partner, to the choices, procedures and specific practices of each country. Our country chose not to abstain. This European Framework Agreement was incorporated into the Greek legal order as an annex to the National General Collective Labor Agreement dated 12.04.2006.

    (b) A definition of teleworking was included by the social partners in the provisions of the Framework Agreement. A rather wide one (not that this is bad)! According to this definition, “Telework is a form of organising and/or performing work, using information technology, in the context of an employment contract/relationship, where work, which could also be performed at the employers’ premises, is carried out away from those premises on a regular basis” (Article 2). It is clear that teleworking is accepted as an employment contract.

    The member-states wanted to point out the voluntary nature of teleworking (Article 3). This contract may be concluded (at the beginning or at a later time of the employment relationship) only on a voluntary basis. And this, after the necessary information on how the work will be executed is first provided, in writing, to the teleworker.

    (c) The above Framework Agreement contains, in addition, provisions relating to:

    1. Equalizing and safeguarding the rights of teleworkers with those of comparable workers. (Comparable workers among those who work within the premises of the employer-company – Article 4). Also, ensuring equal professional opportunities between the two groups of workers concerned (Article 10).
    2. Protecting business data. The employer must provide the necessary, relevant, updates to the teleworker. Indicatively, information on restrictions on the use of the Internet, equipment and IT tools. Also on penalties for non-compliance (Article 5).

    iii. Protecting employees’ privacy and personal data (Article 6).

    1. The employer’s obligation to provide, at their own expense, appropriate technical support to the teleworker. The obligation of the teleworker to take care of the equipment provided by the employer (Article 7). Provision of appropriate training in the use of the equipment provided (Article 10).
    2. Protecting the health and occupational safety of the teleworker (Article 8).
    3. The autonomy of the teleworker to determine the organization of their working time within the framework of the applicable laws, collective agreements and working regulations of the company concerned (Article 9).

    vii. Ensuring that the employer takes measures to avoid the isolation of their staff (Article 9).

    viii. Ensuring the collective rights and collective action of teleworkers (Article 11).

    1. National legislation

    (a) The presumption of employment

    In our country, legislative reference to teleworking is found in Law 2639/1998. Article 1 of that law is entitled: ‘Special forms of employment’. It states that: ‘The agreement between the employer and the person employed for the provision of services or work for a fixed or indefinite period, especially when relating to job-processing contracts, teleworking, home employment, shall be presumed to conceal a contract of employment, provided that work is provided by the person employer themselves, exclusively or primarily to the same employer for nine (9) consecutive months’.

    (b) The independent regulation on teleworking

    Teleworking has become a separate type of national legislation, as a form of employment, by Article 5 of Law 3846/2010. The national legislator has attempted to specify some of the provisions of the European Framework Agreement.

    As regards the obligation of the employer to inform the employee, it was stipulated that: “When the employer draws up a teleworking contract, they shall be obliged to provide the employee, in writing, with all information relating to the performance of the work within eight (8) days” (duties, remuneration, hours, cost of equipment and cost of repair if damaged by the employer, etc.). In fact, the legislator also made an innovation, stating that “if the contract contains a standby clause, the time limits and deadlines for the employee’s response are set.” (Standby contracts have already been addressed in our previous article).

    The legislator acknowledged the difficulties in transitioning from common work to teleworking. It recognized, in this context, the right of withdrawal for both the employee and the employer. It offered a three month adjustment period. It granted both of them the right to return to the previous employment status within that quarter, with a 15-day deadline.

    However, the national legislature imposed two more obligations on the employer: i. The obligation to bear any associated costs of the employee (in particular relating to telecommunications) and, in addition, ii. The obligation of written information of the teleworker, within 2 months of the conclusion of the employment contract, of the latter’s representatives. That is, the employer must provide the teleworker with the contact details of those who represent the labor rights of the staff within the company. (This is in order to provide additional safeguards for teleworkers’ union rights).

    Latest national legislation referring to teleworking is the very recent Legislative Decree of 11.3.2020 (above under III). This Legislative Decree, while not specifying the content of teleworking, nevertheless highlights its value and usefulness.

     

    VIII. Telework And Employment

    For the application of the (protective) provisions of labor legislation on telework, an employment contract is required. Employment-related (traditional) employment theories and related criteria have been developed in the context of the ‘normal work’ regime. Upcoming forms of employment – such as teleworking – could not have be taken into account. The relevant legal provisions in this case are almost inapplicable.

    The place, the way, and especially the working time, are de facto and, to a significant degree, decided by the teleworker. The prevailing theory of dependency seems to be waning. The managerial right of the employer seems insufficient (criterion) to classify telework provided as employment.

    On the contrary, business risk appears as a safer criterion. In the event that the employer bears the business risk, telework is a form of employment. If the person offering their services bears it, then we would be safe to assume the latter is self-employed. Of course, in this case, the provisions of labor law will not apply.

    The lack of adherence to obsolete perceptions is also necessary in this case. It is also necessary to understand developments and adapt Labor Law (as well) to them.

     

     IX. In Conclusion

    It is necessary to detach from perceptions that go back three thousand years or more (the case of galley rowers, for example). Even from perceptions of the past hundred years (eg the Fordian model of production).

    Developments are fast. We cannot ignore them.

    Teleworking offers, as a form of employment, significant opportunities for employees and employers. (Even in a pandemic environment from the COVID-19 infection). In countries of the European Union (and / or abroad), this particular, flexible, form of employment is already booming.

    In order to further utilize this institution in our country, concerns and reservations must be removed. Safeguarding the interests of stakeholders (: employee and employer) will help in this regard. And so will the proper application of teleworking.

    Adopting an adequate regulatory framework seems to be a necessity.

    It must be taken for granted that removing legal uncertainty will help to remove existing rigitness.

    In development as well.

    stavros-koumentakis

    Stavros Koumentakis
    Senior Partner

     

    Disclaimer: the information provided in this article is not (and is not intended to) constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be offered by a competent attorney and after the latter takes into consideration all the relevant to your case data that you will provide them with. See here for more details.

This site is registered on wpml.org as a development site. Switch to a production site key to remove this banner.