Recommendation for a legislation on radiation safety for laborers, encompassing their protection against radiation-related hazards, has been requested from the commission.
In a landmark decision, the Regional Labour Court (Arbeitsgericht) Chemnitz has ruled that employers have the right to challenge sickness certificates when there are legitimate doubts about their authenticity or accuracy. This ruling, which aligns with established German labour law principles, serves as a warning to employees who may attempt to delay the termination of their employment through sickness certificates.
The case in question involved an employed architect who sought a mutual termination of his employment but did not receive one. In an attempt to delay the termination, the architect called in sick and submitted a retroactive sickness certificate. This was followed by further follow-up sickness certificates to cover the notice period.
However, the employer, suspecting foul play, refused to continue paying the salary after the architect submitted additional sickness certificates. The architect's lawsuit was unsuccessful, indicating that employers do not have to continue paying salary if they have legitimate doubts about a sickness certificate.
The court's ruling indicates that employers can withhold salary if they have such doubts. However, the employer must respect the employee's rights and data protection, and investigations must be proportionate. The employer may request an additional medical opinion if there are factual reasons to doubt the certificate. Such doubts must be well-founded, for instance, in cases of inconsistencies in the certificate, observations contradicted by the certificate, or patterns of suspicious absences.
The Association of Labour Law of the German Bar Association has highlighted this decision, which strengthens an employer's position regarding doubts about a sickness certificate. The evidence value of the sickness certificates was questioned due to the timing of the leave and the failed termination agreement. The sickness leave was found implausible due to contradictory diagnoses and insufficient backdating of the first certificate.
This approach balances the employer's interest in preventing abuse of sick leave with the employee’s right to privacy and protection against unjust suspicion. Employees are required to provide sufficient evidence of their incapacity to work when there are doubts about their sickness certificates. Employees must specify their concerns if there are legitimate doubts about their sickness certificates.
Until the doubts are resolved, the employer typically continues paying salary according to law. However, if the certificate is proven fraudulent, disciplinary consequences can follow. This ruling underscores the importance of honesty and integrity in the workplace and the need for employees to act responsibly when submitting sickness certificates.
- Employers can challenge the authenticity of sickness certificates if there are legitimate doubts about their accuracy, as seen in the case of the employed architect who submitted retroactive sickness certificates to delay the termination of his employment.
- In a health-and-wellness context, employers may request therapies-and-treatments as additional medical opinions to investigate suspicions about the accuracy of sickness certificates, as long as their investigations are proportionate and respect employee rights and data protection.
- Mental health is crucial in the workplace-wellness environment, and employees should provide sufficient evidence and address any legitimate doubts about their sickness certificates to maintain a balanced relationship between preventing sick leave abuse and upholding employee privacy rights.
