Vaccination Mandatory On Site Multinationals

Solar2021

Hi All

Pretty important question to many here

What's stopping private multinationals/large companies here of having a policy of vaccinated only on site?

Can they make it policy?

Irishphotodesk

Solar2021 wrote: »

Hi All

Pretty important question to many here

What's stopping private multinationals/large companies here of having a policy of vaccinated only on site?

Can they make it policy?

Any company can make their own policy, however in doing so they risk breaching people's human rights, so if a multinational were to have a policy of vaccinated only on site they could potentially face a legal challenge from employees and from external visitors.

It's all hypothetical and I'm not in ANY way legally trained, but any multinational considering this policy would always have it run past their own legal and possibly an external legal advisor.

C3PO

Would that really be any different to a compulsory mask wearing rule?

Guy:Incognito

Surely the people most likely to resist this will also be backing the company 100% to have the freedom to run their company the way they want?

Victor

I don't think it matters what type of employer it is, the same rules would apply.

Some people can't receive vaccines, due to health reasons. Employers can't discriminate on the basis of disability (which has a broad definition). However, this needs to be balanced by health and safety requirements.

If certain people aren't allowed on site, then alternative work arrangements should be permitted. That would not mean a vaccinated-only site and a unvaccinated-only site, as **requiring** people to work on an unvaccinated-only site would not be safe for certain people.

Given that the roll-out of the vaccine is limited, not providing vaccination, but insisting on vaccination could be a problem.

C3PO wrote: »

Would that really be any different to a compulsory mask wearing rule?

Yes. There are the matters of bodily integrity and safety. Lots of medical treatments aren't authorised for children or pregnant women until their effects are well known.

Mrs OBumble

Solar2021 wrote: »

What's stopping private multinationals/large companies here of having a policy of vaccinated only on site?

Fear of the liability if someone suffered harm from taking it: eg someone with an allergy who didn't want to take the vaccine but felt forced to.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Fear of the liability if someone suffered harm from taking it: eg someone with an allergy who didn't want to take the vaccine but felt forced to.

I wonder though, is there a counterpoint that by allowing a non-vaccinated person into the premises, that then becomes ill because of the disease, would they be in a position to claim as you allowed them access to the place where they became unwell?


Whereas if you restricted access to vaccinated-only, that person would never have been in harms way in the first place.




(long, awkward argument, but it's all theoretical anyway).

GerardKeating

Solar2021 wrote: »

What's stopping private multinationals/large companies here of having a policy of vaccinated only on site?

Can they make it policy?

If they can justify it, they can...

C3PO wrote: »

Would that really be any different to a compulsory mask wearing rule?

Masks are slightly less invasive that vaccines

Paranoid Bob

Related to this; is there a problem with an employer demanding access to health information (vaccination status) under data protection regulations?

It is easy to make an argument that people currently ill or infectious should be excluded from the workplace in order to protect the health of others. It's harder to argue that an employer can demand to know if you are vaccinated / not vaccinated on medical advice / not vaccinated against medical advice. In the absence of any instruction from the Government the employer would need to make a case that processing is necessary under either public interest or the company's legitimate interest.

What about other situations? The idea of a 'vaccine passport' to access some communal spaces has been suggested. I think that would be open to challenge under data protection if used, for example, in a cinema, sports stadium or similar.

Seth Brundle

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

What about other situations? The idea of a 'vaccine passport' to access some communal spaces has been suggested. I think that would be open to challenge under data protection if used, for example, in a cinema, sports stadium or similar.

Not really. You would not be forced to prove it as going to those places is voluntary. If you don't want to present your info then you don't get in. In terms of data protection, I don't see an issue. You're being asked to provide some personal data for a specific purpose. The data presumably will be used for the intended purpose and not shared. What's the issue?

Thoie

Many companies today offer free/easy flu vaccines, but none of them are mandatory that I know of. They usually set up a room in the office for a week or so with a nurse, and people can make an appointment to get the jab during that time. It encourages take up, as people don't have to take time off or pay for it, just a quick 5 minutes during the working day.

If the covid vaccine needs annual/regular top ups, I can see that becoming common, but I can't see most offices making it mandatory. There'll always be a percentage of the population who are unable to receive a particular vaccine, so out of consideration for your colleagues, I'd certainly encourage taking it if you can.

Paranoid Bob

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Not really. You would not be forced to prove it as going to those places is voluntary. If you don't want to present your info then you don't get in. In terms of data protection, I don't see an issue. You're being asked to provide some personal data for a specific purpose. The data presumably will be used for the intended purpose and not shared. What's the issue?

I think what you are saying there is that the grounds for processing the data is 'consent'. For consent to be valid it must be truly voluntary. Making consent a condition of providing service is probably not OK. That's why we have the option to opt out of most cookies on websites. There are some cookies that are necessary enough to qualify as 'legitimate interest' processing and others that can only be processed with consent.

ohnonotgmail

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

I think what you are saying there is that the grounds for processing the data is 'consent'. For consent to be valid it must be truly voluntary. Making consent a condition of providing service is probably not OK. That's why we have the option to opt out of most cookies on websites. There are some cookies that are necessary enough to qualify as 'legitimate interest' processing and others that can only be processed with consent.

It is ok.

Paranoid Bob

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is ok.

I think it is not OK.

From: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rules-business-and-organisations/legal-grounds-processing-data/grounds-processing/when-consent-valid_en

For consent to be freely given the individual must have a free choice and must be able to refuse or withdraw consent without being at a disadvantage. Consent isn’t freely given if, for example, there is a clear imbalance between the individual and the business/organisation (for example employer/employee relationship) or when a business/organisation requires individuals to consent to the processing of unnecessary personal data as a pre-condition to fulfil a contract or service.

ohnonotgmail

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

I think it is not OK.

From: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rules-business-and-organisations/legal-grounds-processing-data/grounds-processing/when-consent-valid_en

the key word being unnecessary. If you want to keep your place of work free of covid it is necessary to confirm that anybody that enters has been vaccinated.

growleaves

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is ok.

!!!

Since when have people had to disclose a part of their medical history in order to enter a building?

Legal minefield. Let us know how you get on in court.

ohnonotgmail

growleaves wrote: »

!!!

Since when have people had to disclose a part of their medical history in order to enter a building?

Legal minefield. Let us know how you get on in court.

companies can place conditions on entry once they do not discriminate on certain grounds.

Paranoid Bob

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the key word being unnecessary. If you want to keep your place of work free of covid it is necessary to confirm that anybody that enters has been vaccinated.

That is exactly the point. Is 'keeping your workplace free of covid' enough to trigger the legitimate interest or public interest grounds for processing?

ohnonotgmail

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

That is exactly the point. Is 'keeping your workplace free of covid' enough to trigger the legitimate interest or public interest grounds for processing?

given the effect of covid I would say yes. who wants to bring a potentially fatal disease into their workplace?

Paranoid Bob

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

given the effect of covid I would say yes. who wants to bring a potentially fatal disease into their workplace?

and again; excluding people who are ill or infectious is an easy argument.
Requiring access to vaccination data is a more difficult argument, because the risk is less and there are other controls that can be applied (masks, social distancing, hand hygiene, etc.)

ohnonotgmail

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

and again; excluding people who are ill or infectious is an easy argument.
Requiring access to vaccination data is a more difficult argument, because the risk is less and there are other controls that can be applied (masks, social distancing, hand hygiene, etc.)

the amount of data required is tiny. A simple yes or no answer to the question "is your vaccination for covid up to date". given the limited amount of data and the risks of contamination I don't see a problem. if they were asking for your entire medical history then you would have a point.

Seth Brundle

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

and again; excluding people who are ill or infectious is an easy argument.
Requiring access to vaccination data is a more difficult argument, because the risk is less and there are other controls that can be applied (masks, social distancing, hand hygiene, etc.)

None of those prevent getting the virus and are only measures to help avoid contracting it.
Whilst the vaccine may not work on everyone, it will be the best method of prevention for most of us. When most people have been vaccinated, it reduces the likleihood of those unable to be vaccinated from catching the virus.
If an employee decides that they don't want to present their evidence of vaccination then they can provide reasons for not having the vaccine. If a doctor certifies that they should not be given the vaccine then fine. If they simply choose to not have the vaccine because of some bullsh1t they saw online then the employer should have the right to day that they cannot return to on-site work. Anyone who chooses to not be vaccinated effectively is choosing that they want to risk having to take sick leave from work, potentially for months. It is important for an employer to be aware of that.
Good luck to any employee that chooses to challenge any vaccination requirement.

growleaves

Seth Brundle wrote: »

None of those prevent getting the virus and are only measures to help avoid contracting it.
Whilst the vaccine may not work on everyone, it will be the best method of prevention for most of us. When most people have been vaccinated, it reduces the likleihood of those unable to be vaccinated from catching the virus.
If an employee decides that they don't want to present their evidence of vaccination then they can provide reasons for not having the vaccine. If a doctor certifies that they should not be given the vaccine then fine. If they simply choose to not have the vaccine because of some bullsh1t they saw online then the employer should have the right to day that they cannot return to on-site work. Anyone who chooses to not be vaccinated effectively is choosing that they want to risk having to take sick leave from work, potentially for months. It is important for an employer to be aware of that.
Good luck to any employee that chooses to challenge any vaccination requirement.

'should have the right' or does have the right?

paddy19

I have seen large notices in pharma plants banning pregnant women from specific areas. Obviously it is a precaution to protect mother and child from a dangerous product.

But it does raise the right of an employee not to be put at risk from a serious illness in a work environment.

Can other employees demand that they are not put risk by having to work with unvaccinated employees?

Sounds like a legal minefield!

Paranoid Bob

Seth Brundle wrote: »

None of those prevent getting the virus and are only measures to help avoid contracting it.
Whilst the vaccine may not work on everyone, it will be the best method of prevention for most of us. When most people have been vaccinated, it reduces the likleihood of those unable to be vaccinated from catching the virus.
If an employee decides that they don't want to present their evidence of vaccination then they can provide reasons for not having the vaccine. If a doctor certifies that they should not be given the vaccine then fine. If they simply choose to not have the vaccine because of some bullsh1t they saw online then the employer should have the right to day that they cannot return to on-site work. Anyone who chooses to not be vaccinated effectively is choosing that they want to risk having to take sick leave from work, potentially for months. It is important for an employer to be aware of that.
Good luck to any employee that chooses to challenge any vaccination requirement.

Please don't think I'm trying to make an anti-vax argument. That is definitely not my intent here. If I had my way vaccination would be mandatory unless otherwise advised by a doctor. ... but that is a whole other can of worms.

Given that vaccination will not be made mandatory by the state I can see the appeal of making it defacto mandatory by having barriers to common services imposed by the private sector; and that is kinda the point of my question.
While it is appealing to have the private sector impose restrictions on the vaccine hesitant population, is that legal?
OP asked if it was legal in terms of employment conditions. I'm asking the same question but in terms of data processing.

growleaves

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

Please don't think I'm trying to make an anti-vax argument.

There are people who are pro-vax but who aren't giddy to have to carry vaccination certificates with them everywhere in order to gain access to private services.

Seth Brundle

growleaves wrote: »

'should have the right' or does have the right?

I woukd take it for granted that there is an onus on an employer to ensure that staff are protected from harm.
An employee that cannot be vaccinated (e.g. pregnant woman) needs to be protected from unvaccinated people.
An employer has the right to ensure that staff are protected from harm - there is an onus on them to do this. This means they can block entry to the premises from anyone, employee or otherwise, who poses a risk to that staff member.

Seth Brundle

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

Please don't think I'm trying to make an anti-vax argument. That is definitely not my intent here.

I didn't read it that way

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

While it is appealing to have the private sector impose restrictions on the vaccine hesitant population, is that legal?

But any restrictions are being put in place to protect all staff, not to prevent the anti-science employees from coming to work.
If an employee chooses to not vaccinate then their choice means that they are choosing to not follow the company policy in terms of ensuring safety for all.

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

OP asked if it was legal in terms of employment conditions. I'm asking the same question but in terms of data processing.

I don't see an issue with requesting access to this specific info for the purpose of ensuring safety at work. Although it is medical info, it isn't much different to asking an employee if they have done a particular H&S course.

basill

Given that vaccination will not be made mandatory by the state I can see the appeal of making it defacto mandatory by having barriers to common services imposed by the private sector; and that is kinda the point of my question.

Many employment contracts will have clauses stipulating right to live and work in EU/free movement/visa etc. As individual governments across the world move to instigate laws/rules on PCR/vaccination certs some employees will be unable to fulfill the terms of their employment contracts. Some employers will be willing and able to facilitate employees that do not get vaccinated for whatever reason. Others will not be so forthcoming.

donalh087

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

What about other situations? The idea of a 'vaccine passport' to access some communal spaces has been suggested. I think that would be open to challenge under data protection if used, for example, in a cinema, sports stadium or similar.

This already exists in some capacity in France. If you go to a holiday camp and intend to leave your kids with one of the play groups you need to show documentary evidence of vaccination (MMR). Travelling from Ireland you need to bring a cert' from your doctor. In fact, IIRC, don't French school require all kids to be vaccinated?

Paranoid Bob

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I woukd take it for granted that there is an onus on an employer to ensure that staff are protected from harm.
An employee that cannot be vaccinated (e.g. pregnant woman) needs to be protected from unvaccinated people.
An employer has the right to ensure that staff are protected from harm - there is an onus on them to do this. This means they can block entry to the premises from anyone, employee or otherwise, who poses a risk to that staff member.

There are basically no rights or obligations that are absolute. Employers don't look for evidence of a measles vaccination, though measles is more infectious than covid. They certainly don't look for health information from customers.

I wanted to pick up just a very narrow question in terms of the data protection aspects of requiring vaccination information. If you expand it wider then you can ask questions like; is it OK to exclude me from the workplace for my religious views (which preclude taking vaccinations)? That is another completely different can of worms.

Paranoid Bob

donalh087 wrote: »

This already exists in some capacity in France. If you go to a holiday camp and intend to leave your kids with one of the play groups you need to show documentary evidence of vaccination (MMR). Travelling from Ireland you need to bring a cert' from your doctor. In fact, IIRC, don't French school require all kids to be vaccinated?

That's really interesting, thank you. So some businesses do look for evidence of a measles vaccine, despite my earlier post!