Federal Labour Court, 18.03.2015, Ref.: 10 AZR 99/14
According to the Continued Remuneration Act (EFZG), an employee affected by illness is entitled to up to six weeks' continued payment of wages. After this period, the health insurance fund steps in.
In principle, employees are entitled to this regardless of the cause of their illness. In certain cases, however, the entitlement may be excluded if the illness is self-inflicted (see Section 3 (1) sentence 1 EFZG).
This is the case, for example, if a professional driver does not wear a seatbelt at work and becomes unfit for work as a result.
In the judgement of the Federal Labour Court discussed here, the court had to decide whether an employee suffering from alcoholism was responsible for his incapacity to work due to alcohol intoxication after multiple inpatient withdrawals within the meaning of the Continued Remuneration Act.
Facts
In this case, a statutory health insurance fund brought an action against the employer of an alcoholic employee, Mr L. Mr L had been employed by the defendant employer since 2007 and had been unable to work several times due to his alcohol-related illness. On 23 November 2011, Mr L. was admitted to hospital with alcohol poisoning (4.9 per mille), whereupon he remained unable to work for over ten months. He had previously undergone two rehab programmes, but had repeatedly relapsed. In the period from 29 November 2011 to 30 December 2011, the health insurance fund paid Mr L sick pay in the amount of EUR 1,303.36 and demanded this sum back from the employer. The claimant argued that Mr L. was not at fault for his alcohol relapse, meaning that he was entitled to continued payment of his salary. The employer took a different view and attributed the relapse to the employee's fault.
Judgement of the lower courts
Both the Labour Court and the Regional Labour Court upheld the health insurance company's claim. Neither court found sufficient evidence of fault on the part of the employee for his relapse. The defendant was ordered to pay the amount claimed. The employer then lodged an appeal with the Federal Labour Court (BAG) to have the decision reviewed.
Decision of the Federal Labor Court
The Federal Labour Court confirmed the judgements of the lower courts and ruled that the defendant was obliged to pay. The employee's alcoholism was recognised as an illness. According to the current state of medical knowledge, alcohol addiction cannot be assumed to be the fault of the employee within the meaning of the law on continued remuneration. Even in the event of a relapse after therapy, it cannot automatically be concluded that the employee is at fault. Studies have shown an abstinence rate of 40 to 50 %, which means that relapses after treatment are not uncommon. In case of doubt, a medical expert opinion should be obtained to clarify the question of possible fault.
Conclusion
In this specific case, a socio-medical report found that Mr L was not at fault for his relapse due to his chronic alcohol addiction and the resulting "addictive pressure". Therefore, there was no fault within the meaning of the Continued Remuneration Act. The decision of the Federal Labour Court thus strengthened the rights of alcohol-dependent employees by placing the burden of proof of fault for relapses on employers. The defendant had to pay the amount claimed.
Source: Federal Labor Court
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or email us at info@mth-partner.de.