News from Consultation with regards to the Covid vaccine per Nurses, Pediatric Nurses, Doctors, Midwives, Social Health Workers, Physiotherapists and Health Professions. The doubt is that the simple control swab is of little use.
The available scientific data have imposed a vaccination obligation for healthcare personnel that cannot be replaced by the measure of the swab for the prevention of Coronavirus infection. The Consulta writes it in the sentence filed today with which it established that the provision, for workers employed in residential, social-welfare and social-health structures, of the vaccination obligation for the prevention of Sars-Cov-2 infection instead of of undergoing the related diagnostic tests (the so-called swab), did not constitute an unreasonable or disproportionate solution compared to the available scientific data.
In response to the questions of constitutional legitimacy raised by the ordinary courts of Brescia, Catania and Padua, the Court therefore affirmed that the contested legislation operated a “not unreasonable reconciliation of the individual’s right to freedom of care with the coexisting and reciprocal right of others and with the interest of the community, in a situation in which it was necessary to take initiatives that would allow health structures to be sheltered from the risk of not being able to carry out their irreplaceable function”.
According to the Court, “the sacrifice imposed on healthcare workers did not go beyond what was indispensable for the achievement of the public purposes of reducing the circulation of the virus, and was constantly modulated on the basis of the progress of the health situation, moreover proving to be suitable for these same purposes ”. Failure to comply with the vaccination obligation – Palazzo della Consulta then recalls – has had its effects on the level of obligations and rights arising from the employment contract, resulting in the temporary impossibility for the employee to carry out tasks involving interpersonal contacts or involving, in any other form, the risk of spreading the infection.
The sentence also considered the legislative choice not to provide, for workers in the health sector who had decided not to get vaccinated, an obligation for the employer to assign them to different tasks, unlike instead of what was established for those who could not be vaccinated for health reasons or for the teaching and educational staff of the school. The judges, in fact, considered this choice “justified by the greater risk of contagion, both for themselves and for the community, related to the exercise of the health professions”.
Finally, the ruling established that the provisions of the contested provisions – according to which the worker who had chosen not to undergo the vaccination was not owed, during the period of suspension, the salary or other compensation or emolument – also justified the non-payment to the suspended employee of a maintenance allowance not exceeding half of the salary. The Court, in fact, deemed the position of the worker who did not intend to get vaccinated incomparable with that of the worker whose suspension from service has been ordered following submission to criminal or disciplinary proceedings, the latter cases in which the alimony can be dispensed.
In particular, the Court excluded that the solution of charging the employer with the solidarity provision of a welfare provision in favor of the worker who had not intended to be vaccinated and who was, therefore, temporarily unfit to carry out the vaccination was constitutionally obligatory. of your work activity.
_________________________
I NOTIFY!
- Anyone wishing to comment on this service can write to [email protected]
- Join the group Telegram Of AssoCareNews.it to never lose any information: LINK
- Subscribe to Facebook page of AssoCareNews.it: LINK
- Subscribe to Facebook group of AsssoCareNews.it: LINK
Recommended by AssoCareNews.it: