Proposal requested for a work safety directive focused on shielding employees from potential ionizing radiation hazards, according to the Commission.
In a recent ruling by the Regional Labour Court of Chemnitz, the case of an employee architect highlighted the importance of providing clear and valid evidence to support sick leave claims. The architect, who was seeking a mutual termination of his employment contract, called in sick and submitted retroactive sickness certificates to cover the period until the expiration of his notice of termination. However, the employer refused to continue paying wages, and the architect's subsequent lawsuit was unsuccessful.
The court's decision underscores the potential consequences for employees who fail to provide sufficient evidence to support their sick leave claims. According to general legal principles in Germany, employers can question the validity of an employee's medical certificate only under limited circumstances and following certain procedures.
The sickness certificate is a form of evidence issued by a doctor that confirms an employee's inability to work due to illness. Generally, employers must accept the certificate unless they have concrete doubts about its authenticity or accuracy. If an employer suspects fraud or doubt regarding the certificate's validity, the employer can request that the employee provide additional medical proof or undergo an independent medical examination.
In the case of the employee architect, the evidence value of the submitted sickness certificates was questioned due to their timing and inconsistencies. Contradictory diagnoses and insufficient backdating of the first certificate without a plausible explanation also made the sickness certificate unbelievable.
The ruling does not change the fact that employers are not obligated to continue paying an employee's salary if they have reasonable doubts about the validity of a sickness certificate. However, the right to question a certificate must balance the employee's right to medical privacy and protection against unjustified dismissal. The court ruled in favor of the employer in this case.
The decision by the Regional Labour Court of Chemnitz sets a precedent for similar cases regarding the validation of sickness certificates. It suggests that employers have some leeway in questioning the validity of sickness certificates if they have reasonable doubts. In such cases, employees may need to provide additional evidence to support the validity of their sickness certificates.
The court did not specify the nature of the evidence that employees should provide to support their sick leave claims. However, the case reiterates the importance of employees providing clear and valid evidence to support their sick leave claims to avoid potential consequences.
This ruling serves as a reminder to both employers and employees of the importance of clear communication and evidence in the event of sick leave. Employers should approach questions about the validity of sickness certificates with caution, balancing their right to question with the employee's right to medical privacy and protection against unjustified dismissal. Employees, on the other hand, should ensure they provide clear and valid evidence to support their sick leave claims to avoid potential consequences.
In light of the Regional Labour Court of Chemnitz's decision, employers can question the validity of sickness certificates if they have reasonable doubts, as long as they strike a balance between their right to inquiry and the employee's right to medical privacy and protection against unjustified dismissal. Employees must therefore ensure they provide clear and valid evidence to support their sick leave claims, as failing to do so could lead to potential consequences.
The employee architect's case underscores the significance of providing adequate evidence for sick leave claims, as incongruities and inadequate evidence in sickness certificates can lead to their questioning and the repercussions that follow.
