Tag: suspension of contracts

  • 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.

  • 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.

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