Head of the Chancellery Braun End of the home office obligation from July

Status: 16.06.2021 5:22 p.m.

In all likelihood, employers will no longer have to offer a home office from July. The corresponding obligation expires. The existing hygiene concepts at the workplace should, however, continue to be adhered to. Chancellery chief Helge Braun has announced an end to the home office obligation. Employers would no longer have to offer a home office from July. “The statutory home office obligation is part of the Infection Protection Act – better known as the ’emergency brake’ – and will expire at the end of June,” said Braun of the “Wirtschaftswoche”.

FAQ 04/22/2021

“Favorable situation”

The “Federal Emergency Brake”, which was only introduced in April provides that the federal government can enforce uniform corona protective measures in areas with incidence values ​​above 100. The Infection Protection Act is limited to June 30th. There had recently been talks within the federal government, in particular about an extension of the home office requirement. Braun has now confirmed, however, that the emergency brake will not be extended at this point in time because the situation is currently “favorable”.

Test offer in companies should remain

According to the Ministry of Labor, rules at the workplace are currently being discussed according to the home office obligation. It is only about “basic requirements” at the workplace such as contact reduction, the obligation to test offers and the obligation to hygiene concepts, according to a spokeswoman. Companies must therefore continue to offer employees in companies a corona test twice a week. This emerges from the draft of the new occupational health and safety ordinance of the Federal Ministry of Labor. “We will extend the amended occupational health and safety ordinance so that the protection of employees is in the foreground even when the incidence is falling,” said Federal Labor Minister Hubertus Heil (SPD). In view of the low corona incidences, however, the obligation to work from home can no longer be justified with occupational safety and is therefore no longer applicable. The SPD politician emphasized that a mixture of presence culture and home office would be “the new normal”. “And for that we need a binding legal framework,” stressed Heil.

06/13/2021

Braun: “New edition of the ’emergency brake’ possibly in autumn”

Chancellery chief Braun said of a possible new edition of the “Federal Emergency Brake” that this would depend on the vaccination rate, the effect of the vaccines and the possible spread of further virus mutations in the autumn. “If the numbers went up again, then you would have to decide quickly.” At the moment there is no reason to extend the “federal emergency brake”.

Corona protection in companies Are employers allowed to force vaccination?

Status: 08.06.2021 7:13 p.m.

Since the beginning of the week, company doctors have also been able to vaccinate against Covid-19. But what about legally? Can companies require their staff to be vaccinated? And are they allowed to grant privileges to those who have been vaccinated? From Jens Eberl, WDR The companies have a great interest in preventing infections with the coronavirus and sick leave. This is why many employers want their employees to be vaccinated. With the start of vaccinations by the company doctors, various legal issues between employers and employees come to the fore. An overview.

Can the employer oblige his staff to vaccinate?

Employees only need to be vaccinated if there is a legal obligation to do so. There is no statutory vaccination requirement with Covid-19. “However, special features apply in facilities such as hospitals, prevention or rehabilitation facilities and medical practices,” says the Brühl-based specialist lawyer for labor law, Michael Felser. “They must ensure that all measures required by the state of the art of medical science are taken there to prevent infections and the spread of pathogens. Curiously, however, this does not apply in care facilities for the elderly, although the problem here is likely to be comparable”, so Felser. In the health care facilities mentioned, the employer cannot force employees to vaccinate either. However, he must ensure that non-vaccinated people pose no risk to patients. Patient protection can therefore make it necessary that non-vaccinated people can no longer work in certain areas.

Do employees have to inform the employer about their vaccination status?

Actually, there is no obligation to provide information about the personal vaccination status to the employer. However, the Gelsenkirchen labor lawyer Arndt Kempgens emphasizes that companies have to take corona protective measures for their employees. But they could only do that if the corona vaccination status was known. Kempgens concludes from this that in connection with Corona, under labor law – as an exception – there could be an obligation on the part of employees to notify the vaccination status and, under certain circumstances, to prove it.

Are vaccination incentives such as bonus payments from the employer permitted?

Employers could pay a “vaccination bonus”, for example through a one-off sum of money, vouchers or extra vacation days. Lawyer Felser says: “This is not entirely uncritical, because rewards can exert undue pressure not to exercise one’s rights. For example, courts have only declared rewards for employees who rarely get sick to be admissible under strict conditions.” The trade unions consider incentives for those willing to vaccinate to be permissible. However, they have a say in any case, as such a bonus is subject to co-determination. Kempgens emphasizes, however, that it must be fair: “There must not only be a bonus for those who don’t like vaccinations as an incentive to vaccinate, but if so, then for everyone.”

Can the employer exert “vaccination pressure”? Can the staff defend themselves against this?

If there is no statutory vaccination requirement, the employer cannot exert any pressure, neither with instructions nor with threats such as transfer or even warnings and dismissal. Such measures would be illegal. However, attorney Kempgens reports: “We are currently hearing more and more of such cases in legal practice. Pressure is exerted to convince those unwilling to vaccinate.” In extreme cases, employees can even defend themselves against this with an action for an injunction before the labor courts.

Are professional disadvantages possible if you don’t get vaccinated?

If there is no compulsory vaccination, the employer cannot differentiate according to whether someone is vaccinated or not or whether they have not wanted to be vaccinated in the past, as long as there was no obligation to do so. In medical institutions, however, the employer can reject applicants if they are not vaccinated and do not want to be vaccinated. Lawyer Kempgens, however, restricts: “Unvaccinated employees require other protective measures in the company and also lead to disagreements among the employees. For this reason, non-vaccinated employees will certainly not be preferred in the company in the near future.”

Are employers allowed to distinguish between vaccinated and non-vaccinated people?

“In my opinion, they even have to,” says Kempgens. “As with official measures, labor law restrictions are more difficult to justify for vaccinated people, while labor law protective measures have to be stronger for non-vaccinated people.” Felser believes privileges are conceivable, such as the earlier return of vaccinated employees from the home office to the office or the use of communal facilities such as the canteen. However, the incentive or pressure from such preferences should not be disproportionate.

There is an agreement in the coalition to oblige companies to offer a quick test for face-to-face employees in the company. The SPD chairmen Saskia Esken and Norbert Walter-Borjans announced after a meeting of the presidium that this will now be initiated by the federal government in the cabinet meeting. The SPD assumes that the federal cabinet as a whole will both adopt stricter corona rules through federal law and approve an ordinance on the obligation to test offers in companies. Esken and co-party leader Walter-Borjans announced that the cabinet would take note of an ordinance from Labor Minister Hubertus Heil, with which mandatory test offers would be established in companies. This was discussed with the federal states and parliamentary groups, and the federal cabinet was also “in agreement on these objectives,” said Esken.

Usage does not have to be documented

The draft of the Ministerial Ordinance is based on the ARD capital studio in front. There should therefore not be any obligation to test for employees. It is only about the test offer obligation for companies. Companies also do not have to document whether the employees actually use the tests. And: Companies that have been badly hit by the Corona crisis can count the expenses for the tests as a cost item for the bridging aid. First of all, every employee should receive one test per week. If you have a lot of contacts, you should get two tests. All in all, the regulation is not as strict as many business associations fear. And yet there is criticism, for example from the employers’ association BDA. Managing Director Steffen Kampeter criticizes: The obligation to test leads to more bureaucracy and discredits the voluntary commitment of companies. It is of little consolation if the test bureaucracy that has now been introduced does not implement all of the proposed measures.

Stricter rules, more childhood sick days

The ministerial coordination is currently ongoing, tomorrow the federal cabinet is expected to approve the measure. According to the SPD boss Esken, the generally stricter corona rules that are also to be decided include a binding emergency brake, according to which “all openings must be withdrawn” if the infection value exceeds 100. There are “exit restrictions to be provided”. It was also agreed to increase the number of days paid for children’s illnesses per parent from the current 20 to 30 days. With a view to resistance in the Union parliamentary group to these new regulations, Esken said: “It must now be our most important goal to protect the health of people and the employees in hospitals”. The situation in the intensive care units is particularly dramatic, said the SPD leader.

Compulsory tests should relieve the economy

In view of the negative attitude of some Union politicians to mandatory test offers in companies, Walter-Borjans warned that these politicians should also be aware that this would “avert a complete lockdown” for the economy. He also referred to ongoing discussions about extending the bridging allowances for businesses as well as in favor of downtown businesses. The SPD parliamentary group is also obviously behind the planned measures. “We support a rapid emergency brake in the Infection Protection Act, which formulates the measures precisely and bindingly,” said parliamentary group vice-president Dirk Wiese of the AFP news agency. The current inconsistencies in protective measures must be overcome. Wiese also pushed for a nationwide test obligation for employers, “because it is becoming more and more obvious that it does not work across the board without pressure”.

Advance by the Minister of Labor

With his plans for a mandatory test offer at the workplace, Federal Labor Minister Hubertus Heil had accelerated the discussion. Encouragement for the move came from the union side, among others. Reiner Hoffmann, chairman of the German trade union federation (DGB), told the newspapers of the “Funke Mediengruppe” that there had to be a test obligation for employers: “It is simply not understandable why people in the private sector have been restricting themselves to their basic rights for over a year , but the rules for employers are still as smooth as butter. ” The Union and employers have so far refused to test. Economics minister Peter Altmaier recently emphasized that he relied on the voluntary nature of the companies that had agreed to expand their test offer. According to a report by “Spiegel”, the Federal Ministry of Economics is said to have given way in the meantime. It was said that one would turn around. The departmental coordination is ongoing to clarify the final details. With information from Tobias Betz, ARD capital studio