[ad_1]
Harsh words, clear words. “Protecting health means vaccinating as many people as possible.” Even in the case of vaccine against COVID-19. It says Raffaele Guariniello, specifying that “it is not a moral indication, it is what the law provides. The principle according to which no one can be forced to receive medical treatment if it is not provided for by law is provided for in the Constitution – explains the magistrate -. The art. 279 of the Consolidated Work Safety Law obliges the employer to make available “Effective vaccines for those workers who are not yet immune to the biological agent, to be administered by the competent doctor.“.
Variant of Covid, “patient zero” identified in England. “But the virus may have come from elsewhere”
Covid-19 is one of the biological agents, also included in the group of the most insidious, as established by two decree laws that have implemented a European directive. Therefore, by law, since, as we all hope, a vaccine for Covid (the biological agent) is now available, the employer must make effective vaccines available. We are talking about millions and millions of people, employees (and not) private and public ”. If it is true that the law says “make available“ – Guariniello affirms to Il Fatto Quotidiano- and that is why he does not force anyone to be vaccinated, it is also “true that the same rule requires the employer “the temporary dismissal of the worker in case of unsuitability for work on the recommendation of the competent doctor“. And how can the doctor not make a judgment of disability if the employer, in the judgment of the competent doctor, has made the vaccine available, which was later rejected by the worker? ”.
“Health surveillance not only serves to protect the individual worker – continues the judge – but also everyone else. The Constitutional Court has reiterated it several times: the protection of health is a right of the individual and an interest of the community. The law establishes the obligation to remove the worker and use it for other tasks, but only when possible. The Supreme Court considers that this repechage obligation cannot be considered violated when the worker’s relocation to the company is not compatible with the organizational structure established by the company itself. Ultimately, the employer is obliged to prepare organizational measures to protect the job, but if this is not possible, there is a risk of termination of the employment relationship “.
English variant, WHO alarm: “More easily transmitted by youth and children”
A just cause of dismissal? “The state of emergency does not allow layoffs – Guariniello responds -, the fragile worker has the right to work intelligently. But the problem could arise in the future. Some might complain about the violation of personal freedom by not having the vaccine. He could, but to be right he would first have to change the law. Otherwise, the legislation is clear in providing that the vaccine is available, withdrawn and destined for other work. “where possible“ of the worker who refuses inadequate “.
© REPRODUCTION RESERVED
[ad_2]
