This is not an unreasonable or disproportionate solution: here is the answer to the questions of constitutional legitimacy raised by the Courts of Brescia, Catania and Padua
L’obligation of anti-Covid vaccines introduced for the health personnel “did not constitute an unreasonable or disproportionate solution to the available scientific data”. It establishes it Constitutional Court in a ruling, underlining the goal of “preventing the spread of the virus and safeguarding the functionality of the health system”.
Questions raised by three Courts The sentence of the Court is the answer to the questions of constitutional legitimacy raised by the Courts of Brescia, Catania and Padua: the legislation in this regard, he established, has operated a not unreasonable reconciliation of the right to freedom of care of the individual 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 healthcare facilities to be sheltered from the risk of not being able to perform their irreplaceable function.
Sacrifices in line with the public good According to the judges, the sacrifice imposed on healthcare workers did not exceed what was deemed 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.
No vaccine, effects on work Failure to comply with the vaccination obligation 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 spread of infection.
No different tasks to No vax, suitable choice The ruling also deemed the legislative choice not to be contrary to the principles of equality and reasonableness not to envisage, for workers in the health sector who had decided not to get vaccinated, an obligation on the part of the employer to assign them to different tasks, unlike what instead established for those who could not be vaccinated for health reasons or for the teaching and educational staff of the school. The Court considered this choice justified by the greater risk of contagion, both for oneself and for the community, related to the exercise of the health professions.
Ok no salary or other compensation Finally, the sentence decided that the provisions of the contested provisions, according to which the worker who had chosen not to undergo the vaccination were 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 perform of his work activity.