Alle Rechtstipps
06.05.2019
(updated on
07.04.2026
)
0
Min. read
The so called health bonus is being discussed in the media in the field of labour law. Opinions differ in particular as to the actual purpose of the health bonus. Some say that the health bonus is intended to reward employees who are never or rarely on sick leave. Others maintain that the aim is to curb misuse of continued payment of wages in the event of illness. Such bonuses are more frequently found in medium sized companies and are rare in large corporations. It is often argued that there is a risk that employees will go to work when they are unwell or even ill and may infect other employees, simply in order not to lose the bonus. Others believe that honest employees are finally being rewarded because employees who take unjustified sick leave at the expense of the employer harm both the company and colleagues, who then have to make up for the absence by working more. Regardless of the purpose attributed to the health bonus and the way it is assessed, the question arises in what form the introduction of such a health bonus is permissible.Requirements for a health bonusA permissible health bonus is always a special payment. This means that it is a voluntary benefit granted by the employer that is not paid in respect of specific periods on a regular recurring basis, but is paid in addition. It is granted to employees on the condition that the benefit is reduced for periods of absence due to illness. The question is how much the promised bonus may be reduced per day of absence due to illness. Section 4a of the Continued Payment of Wages Act governs the limits of such reductions. The statutory upper limit per day is one quarter of the amount of pay that the employee earns on average per working day in the year. More specifically, the pay earned in a certain period is determined and used to calculate the daily pay. One quarter of the daily pay is the maximum reduction for each day of illness.Can a reduction be made for every type of absence due to illnessSection 4a of the Continued Payment of Wages Act regulates only reductions for absences due to illness. The cause of the illness is irrelevant. The wording of the statute therefore even permits reductions in the case of industrial accidents. Mere absence from work under section 616 of the Civil Code does not justify a reduction. The same applies to absences due to maternity protection related prohibitions on employment.Do collective agreements or contractual provisions take precedence over the statutory ruleThe act does not contain any explicit provision on rules in collective agreements. It is therefore necessary to interpret it in a way that is consistent with the constitution. It is generally assumed that where a collective agreement contains a different upper limit for reductions, this rule takes precedence, regardless of whether it is more favourable or less favourable for the employee. In individual employment contracts, by contrast, it is assumed that alternative provisions on reductions are invalid if they are less favourable for the employee.Attorney at law Hans Jörg Briest and his team will be pleased to advise you in a personal meeting on how a health bonus can be introduced in a legally permissible way in your company.
Hans-Jörg Briest
Rechtsanwalt
Schwerpunkte:
Arbeitsrecht
Wirtschaftsrecht
Gesellschaftsrecht
Langjährige Erfahrung in der Beratung mittelständischer Arbeitgeber, insbesondere bei Restrukturierungen und Personalabbau.
Kontakt
Ob akuter Konflikt oder strategische Beratung: wir sind für Sie da. Nutzen Sie unser Kontaktformular oder rufen Sie uns direkt an.
Jetzt kontaktieren