Struggling due to infected tattoo, no financial compensation provided
In a recent ruling, the Regional Labour Court of Schleswig-Holstein in Kiel, Germany, has set a precedent that could have significant implications for employee rights, particularly in cases of self-inflicted health risks.
The case in question involved a care assistant who, while on sick leave, had her employer refuse to continue paying her salary. The employer argued that the infection was self-inflicted, as it resulted from a tattoo, and was not a normal health risk. The court agreed with this argument, stating that the employee's behaviour was a violation of her own health interests.
This ruling further suggests that employers can use an employee's self-inflicted health risks to refuse continued payment of salary. However, it's important to note that this decision is not universal and depends on the specific circumstances of each case.
Employees are initially entitled to continued payment of their salary when unable to work. This entitlement is typically governed by general sick leave, disability, and workplace injury regulations rather than the cause of the illness. In this instance, the court considered the employee's infection as not an unusual or remote complication, given the five percent chance of infection when getting a tattoo.
It's crucial to remember that if an illness results from negligence by the tattoo artist, such as the use of unsanitary equipment causing infection, the employee could pursue a personal injury claim against the tattoo artist for medical costs and lost earnings. However, this does not alter the employer's obligations to pay salary during sick leave.
Employment contracts or union agreements may specify the terms of salary continuance during illness, but these apply uniformly regardless of the illness origin. Some states or employers also have specific earned sick time laws or paid medical leave mandates, requiring continued payment during illness as a general rule, without exceptions for tattoo-related illness.
The Kiel ruling emphasizes the importance of considering risks and side effects in cases of self-inflicted health issues. Labour lawyer Jens Klarmann highlighted this ruling, stating that it serves as an example of the potential implications of such rulings on employee rights.
It's essential for employees to notify their employer and provide medical certification when taking sick leave, especially in cases where the illness may be self-inflicted. This ruling reinforces the idea that employers may have grounds to refuse continued payment of salary in certain self-inflicted health risk scenarios. The case number for this ruling is 5 Sa 284 a/24.
In conclusion, continued salary payment for an employee ill after getting a tattoo is governed by the usual sick leave and disability provisions applicable in the jurisdiction and workplace, not by any tattoo-specific law. Employees should be aware of their rights and responsibilities in such situations, and it's always advisable to consult with a labour lawyer for guidance.
[1] This information is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Consult a labour lawyer for advice tailored to your specific situation.
[2] Specific state laws and employer policies may vary, so it's essential to understand the specific regulations in your jurisdiction.
- The Kiel ruling underscores the potential impact of self-inflicted health issues on workplace-wellness, suggesting that employers might use such risks to refuse continued salary payment under certain circumstances.
- The realm of health-and-wellness extends beyond the workplace, and employees should be mindful of the potential implications of their personal choices, such as skin-care practices like tattoos, on their employment status and benefits.
- To safeguard their rights and financial interests, employees should seek professional advice from a labour lawyer, particularly when exploring the nuances of nutrition and its relation to self-inflicted health risks in the context of employment.
