Although the decision is somewhat old, it plays a role in numerous labor law disputes. It will therefore be briefly examined below.
In its ruling dated September 8.9.2021, XNUMX, the Federal Labor Court decided that the high probative value of a certificate of incapacity for work can be undermined if an employee becomes unable to work on the day of his or her own termination and the certified inability to work also covers the exact duration of the notice period.
1. FACTS
In the proceedings, the parties disputed continued payment of wages for a period of approximately two weeks. The plaintiff employee was employed by the defendant company as a commercial employee.
On February 8.2.2019, 22.2.2019, the plaintiff informed her supervisor that she would not be coming to work. The plaintiff also submitted a termination notice effective February 8.2.2019, 22.2.2019 on the same day. In addition, the plaintiff also submitted a certificate of incapacity for work for the period from February 8.2.2019, 22.2.2019 to February XNUMX, XNUMX inclusive. As a result, she did not perform her work. The employer did not make any payments for the period from February XNUMX, XNUMX to February XNUMX, XNUMX.
The employee then filed a lawsuit for continued payment of wages for the above-mentioned period. The Braunschweig Labor Court upheld the lawsuit. The Lower Saxony State Labor Court rejected the defendant's appeal. The defendant's subsequent appeal before the Federal Labor Court was successful.
2. DECISION
After a successful appeal, the Federal Labor Court upheld the lawsuit.
According to the general rules, the employee bears the burden of demonstrating and proving that the requirements for continued payment of wages are met (Section 3 EFZG). As a rule, an employee can provide such proof relatively easily by presenting a certificate of incapacity for work (Section 5 EFZG) lead. According to the established case law of the Federal Labor Court, a certificate of incapacity for work therefore has a high evidentiary value. This means that the responsible court must first assume that the incapacity to work is correct. Only if the employer manages to undermine the evidentiary value of the certificate of incapacity for work does the employee have to provide full proof of his incapacity for work again.
Due to the coincidence of the notice period and the certified incapacity for work, the Federal Labor Court assumed that the evidentiary value in the specific case had been successfully shaken. In addition, the plaintiff's further presentation on the alleged sleep disorders and the precursor to burnout was not sufficient in the court's opinion.
3. CONCLUSION
Employers should keep the decision in mind. At "suspectCertificates of incapacity for work may be worth taking a second look in the future. The decision gives the employer the necessary procedural means to obtain such certificates of incapacity for work. However, one should not forget that, in our opinion, this is an “extreme” isolated case. In practice, it will probably be rare for an employee to make such poor statements about their illnesses in the process. As shown, it is sufficient that he provides evidence specifically about the existing illnesses, their consequences and the therapy. This is usually possible without further ado. The employer will then hardly be able to refute this claim.
