Work Vaccine Mandate Case
Re: the Legality of forcing an employee to be vaccinated for covid by their employer
Facts of the Case
- Dates: March 1, 2022 (?)
- Location: Austria
- Court: Landesgericht Krems (Krems Regional Court)
- Case #:
- Plaintiff: Chauffeur & House Technician
- Plaintiff’s Lawyer:
- Defendant: Special Needs Care Facility
- Trial Type:
- Judge:
- Status: Decided
- Verdict: for the Plaintiff
*updated March 25, 2022
Background
In the summer and fall of the previous year, mainstream media, politicians at various levels, the medical associations and especially the vaccination experts of the National Vaccination Committee as well as the pharmaceutical lobby as a whole had put massive pressure on employees to be vaccinated. It had been threatened with dismissal and cancellation of unemployment benefits and partly it was also implemented. Now a court has heard a challenge. [1]
A person who was employed as a chauffeur and house technician in an institution for severely impaired people (defendant) was dismissed from his work only because the plaintiff did not want to be administered a so-called vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. [1]
At trial, it was undisputed that the reason for the plaintiff’s termination was his refusal to be vaccinated against Covid-19. [2]
Significance
This case provides a legal basis as to whether an employer may require an employee to have a vaccination administered and whether an employee has the right to defend against the interference with his/her bodily integrity from said employer or risk termination. Dismissal of an employee who does not wish to be treated with these injections can be successfully challenged. [2]
The special circumstances of the novel procedures, which do not represent conventional vaccinations, have not even been referred to. After all, the mRNA procedures have never before been used on humans. They are only conditionally approved and do not provide lasting immunity (hence boosters). [2]
Plaintiff’s Argument
The termination was contested pursuant to § 105 para 3 subpara 1 lit i ArbVG (motive termination) and explained as follows in justification: [2]
“The decision as to whether or not to be administered a so-called vaccine is arguably up to each individual. Regardless of the fact that the inviolable and inviolable rights related to physical health are enshrined in fundamental law, it is stated that the Council of Europe on 27.01.2021 in its Resolution 2361 (2021) decided, among other things, that this so-called vaccination may not be mandatory and that no one may be discriminated against because they are not vaccinated.” [1]
The Council of Europe thus follows the constitutionally guaranteed rights to physical and mental integrity of the person (Art. 3 CFR), respect for private and family life (Art. 8 ECHR) and equality before the law (Art. 7 (1) B-VG), the protection of which is also fully due to the plaintiff. [2]
Further on the “vaccines”:
“Both the preparations of BioNTech Pfizer, as well as those of Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca were only conditionally approved, namely provisionally for a period of 1 year, because essential data on the efficacy and safety of use are not (yet) available and must be collected only after the conditional approval in the so-called post-marketing. [1]
Therefore, the approvals were granted with the requirement to submit study results on efficacy and safety by 2022 (for Moderna), 2023 (for BioNTech Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson) and 2024 (for AstraZeneca), i.e. at a time when millions of vaccine doses will already have been vaccinated in Austria. But this means that every person who undergoes vaccination in the next few months will effectively be a “second-class study participant” (no medical supervision).” [1]
Only preliminary evaluation reports are currently available on the “safety” aspect. The final study results will have to be submitted several years later. The ongoing clinical phases I and II to test safety have been significantly shortened by shuffling and pooling. [2]
It is therefore not possible to make any reliable statements on any long-term effects or side effects occurring in the medium term. Above all, however, interactions with medications were not tested. However, these aspects represent only an exemplary list and a conclusive assessment of the risks for the population cannot be made at present. In addition, it is pointed out that the risk-benefit ratio on the part of the plaintiff is not positive. [2]
However, it is a fact, based on the data already available, that in connection with the substances of all four manufacturers there have been both numerous deaths and frequently serious side effects. Of course, these are only those side effects that became apparent and were also reported after only a few weeks after the so-called vaccination. [2]
It is also stated accordingly:
“Even if the defendant were to take the position that the interests, health and right to self-determination of an employee can be completely disregarded and any interests of other employees and clients would prevail, this argument would fall flat as a purely protective claim. In justification, it is pointed out that there is currently no evidence whatsoever that vaccinated persons can no longer infect anyone; sterile immunity has not yet been proven by any of the vaccines. This is also explicitly mentioned in the approval documents of the European Medicines Agency (EMA).” [1]
Defendant’s Argument
The defendant argued in the proceedings that the majority of the clients were severely disabled and required special protection due to serious pre-existing conditions. Many of those affected could not wear a mask due to their limitations, and direct physical contact repeatedly occurred in the course of care. The special protection and responsibility cannot be passed on to the clients. Neither testing nor the wearing of FFP2 masks would be able to prevent infections.
Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases
…More information is needed…
Decision
The court states in its judgment that the “dismissal (of the case) must have occurred because of the defense against unjustified demands of the employer.” That the demand for vaccination was unjustified follows, among other things, from the fact that at the “time the termination was issued, there was (and currently is) no general legal obligation for Covid-19 vaccination. Therefore, there is also no obligation under labor law for employees to be vaccinated, which could be unilaterally ordered and enforced by an instruction from the employer (cf. Gerhartl, COVID-19: Arbeitsrechtliche Maßnahmen wegen Infektion oder Impf- bzw Testverweigerung, RdW 2021/230, p. 274; Pallwein, Indirekte Impfpflicht am Arbeitsplatz?, ARD 6738/5/2021, p. 3ff).” [1]
Therefore:
“The performance of a vaccination is a medical intervention and constitutes a significant interference with the physical integrity of the plaintiff, which – in the absence of a legal obligation to vaccinate – cannot be ordered by the employer.” [1]
Aftermath
…More information is needed…
Further Research
Court Documents:
- Read the Court Ruling
In the news:
…More information is needed…
Media
……
source: ….
….
source: ….
….
source: ….
References
Keyword
Austria, employment, Krems, Mandate, Termination, Vaccine, Work