Article 31 - Fair and just working conditions
Key facts of the case:
The constitutional referral was made in the context of a labor dispute. An employer contested the constitutionality of Romanian labor legislation which does not allow an employer to fire an employee when a medical committee finds that their employee’s health requires special adjustments to be made at the work place in order for the employee to be able to work.
The employer argued that whenever a medical committee finds that an employee is unfit to work because of their health, the employer can terminate the contract. However, when a medical committee issues a conditional medical approval for work, which specifies that the employee can only work under certain conditions the employer cannot terminate the contract. The company which challenged the constitutionality of these provisions argues that these situations are in principle the same and should be treated the same as in practice employers, in some circumstances, cannot make necessary adjustments at work and terminating the working contract is the only option, not to harm the health of the employee and to guarantee the rights prescribed by article 31(1) of the Charter which provide that every worker has the right to working conditions which respect his or her health, safety and dignity.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The legal question raised is if the right to working conditions which respect the health, safety and dignity of the employee also allows employers to terminate the working contract of an employee when they cannot provide proper working conditions which are not detrimental to the health of the employee.
Outcome of the case:
The Constitutional Court found the allegations as unfounded and ruled that the legal provisions which were challenged are constitutional.
It found that existing legislation is meant to protect the employee and their right to work, including when there are limitations to their ability to work, limitations which cannot be considered to be the fault of the employee. It is the employer’s obligation to make the necessary adjustments to ensure that the working conditions do not negatively affect the employees’ health.
When indeed a medical committee finds that the employee is not able to work, the employer can terminate the working contract but when the medical committee finds that the employee is able to work but under certain conditions it is the duty of the employer to ensure those conditions are met and the employer cannot terminate the contract whenever it cannot ensure those conditions.
32. In view of these criticisms, the Court holds that the two situations compared by the author of the constitutional complaint are clearly different, so that the establishment of different legal treatment is justified. The arguments put forward by the author of the complaint propose, in reality, a legislative amendment intended to release employers from their constitutional and legal obligations to ensure the safety and health of workers where those obligations are difficult to fulfill. However, as the Court has held above, the intention of the legislature, in full accordance with the constitutional provisions, is precisely to maintain those obligations, so that the reduction in the employee's physical and/or mental fitness to carry out his work does not lead to the dramatic consequence for him of losing his job and the salary by which he secures the income necessary for his subsistence. Therefore, Article 61(1)(a) of Directive c) of Law No 53/2003 is in perfect accordance with the constitutional provisions of Article 41 para. (2) and Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
32. Față de aceste critici, Curtea reține că cele două situații comparate de autoarea excepției sunt, în mod evident, diferite, astfel că instituirea unui tratament juridic diferit este justificată. Susținerile autoarei excepției propun, în realitate, o modificare legislativă care are drept scop derobarea angajatorului de obligațiile constituționale și legale ce îi revin în vederea asigurării securității și sănătății lucrătorilor atunci când aceste obligații sunt dificil de realizat. Or, așa cum Curtea a reținut mai sus, intenția legiuitorului, în deplin acord cu prevederile constituționale, este tocmai aceea de a menține aceste obligații, astfel încât reducerea aptitudinilor fizice și/sau psihice ale salariatului de a desfășura munca să nu conducă la consecința dramatică pentru acesta de a pierde locul de muncă și salariul prin care își asigură venitul necesar traiului. Prin urmare, dispoziția art. 61 lit. c) din Legea nr. 53/2003 este în perfect acord cu prevederile constituționale ale art. 41 alin. (2) și cu art. 31 din Carta drepturilor fundamentale a Uniunii Europene.