It could become more uncomfortable in companies in the future - at least for employees who are not prepared to adhere to the “3-G rule”.

The factions of the traffic light parties plan to anchor this obligation in the Infection Protection Act;

This means that only employees in the office or at the workbench could appear who either provide evidence that they have recovered or have been vaccinated, or are willing to test themselves daily for the corona virus.

Corinna Budras

Business correspondent in Berlin.

  • Follow I follow

Andreas Mihm

Business correspondent for Austria, East-Central and Southeastern Europe and Turkey based in Vienna.

  • Follow I follow

Christian Schubert

Economic correspondent for Italy and Greece.

  • Follow I follow

Niklas Záboji

Business correspondent in Paris

  • Follow I follow

There is much to suggest that most employees will get involved;

In any case, such rules have already been successfully anchored in other European countries.

However, such requirements can only be enforced across the board if a violation also results in sanctions.

It is still unclear whether the traffic light parties will also present specific changes to the law for consequences under labor law.

The parliamentary groups of the FDP, SPD and Greens did not want to comment on Tuesday.

But the existing rules are already developing some potential threats.

Balancing of interests in favor of the company is necessary

The most important consequence is that a complete refusal can be expensive for employees, as the labor law professor at the University of Bonn Gregor Thüsing explains.

Because: Anyone who does not provide a 3-G certificate is not “efficient” and is therefore not allowed to appear at work at all.

And those who do not work even though they could, are not entitled to wages.

"Until the employee restores his performance through a test or vaccination certificate, he would have to expect wage losses," says Thüsing.

It is not that easy to answer, however, whether the employee may also be dismissed in the event of permanent refusal.

A “behavior-related termination” would be possible, since the employee is “not at the mercy of the state of incapacity”, as Thüsing puts it, but can remedy it himself with a simple corona test.

However, there are further strict requirements attached to a termination: In addition to the previous behavior, the boss must be able to assume that the employee will consistently refuse in the future.

In addition, the balancing of interests must be in favor of the company.

Our neighbors are leading the way

There are now plenty of examples of how this works abroad: In Austria, there has even been a lockdown for unvaccinated people since Monday. Going to the workplace is exempt from this, but a 3-G obligation has been in effect there since November 1st. Anyone who has not been vaccinated or recovered needs the negative test here too. The antigen test must not be older than 24 hours, the PCR test not older than 72 hours. The problem: In some places there is a lack of test and laboratory capacities.

According to the ordinance, the employee must provide 3-G evidence, otherwise there is a risk of wage deprivation and dismissal.

How often this happens in companies that are also looking for skilled workers is another question.

The employer must inform the workforce and at least check their behavior in random samples.

How and how often this happens is up to him.

There is no obligation to carry out comprehensive checks or admission controls.

It is also unclear whether the employer can save the results.

In Tyrol, employees now also have to wear an FFP-2 mask at work.

Anyone who can work in the home office, but not yet, should soon be asked to do so.