In the context of the floods, many questions have arisen as to when an employee is entitled to time off work and whether or not the employee is entitled to receive wage for it. In this article, we will attempt to provide a comprehensive overview of the most common situations that may arise and their employment law implications, together with a more general background to this legal issue.

For purposes of our review, we will rely on the wording of the law. The rights and obligations in the following situations may be regulated differently (for the benefit of the employee), for example, by collective agreements, internal regulations or even in employment contracts.

At the outset, it may be stated that the legislation provides only a limited list of situations in which employees are entitled to time off work. However, as will be explained below, this does not mean that the employee is not entitled to leave in other situations.

• The employee cannot get to work due to impassable roads or traffic interruptions.

According to the Decree, in such a case, the employee is entitled to time off work without pay for the necessary period of time if the workplace cannot be reached by other reasonable means (for example, if it is possible to use the bus service, which takes 35 minutes instead of the usual method of transport by train, which takes 15 minutes).

In a similar situation, only employees who are severely disabled and who travel to work by means other than public transport and whose travel by the means they use is not possible are entitled to wage compensation.

• The employee has a child whose school or daycare is closed.

An employee caring for a child under 10 years of age is entitled to leave of absence in the event of the closure of a school or other similar establishment of which the child is a pupil and is entitled to a nursing allowance of 60 % for a maximum of 9 days, or 16 days in the case of single parents.

• The employee is clearing away damage in the public interest.

According to the law, an employee is entitled to leave without pay in the performance of civic duties (where there is a public interest). Civic duties include, but are not limited to, personal assistance to employees during natural disasters.

Where leave is to be taken by an employee for the purpose of repairing damage in the public interest, it is highly appropriate that he should carry out his activities under the direction or at the guidance of the authorities directing and organising those activities. If the employee provides personal assistance without such guidance or direction, the public interest test will not normally be met. In our view, this provision needs to be interpreted rather restrictively.

Where an employee carries out these activities, it is irrelevant whether the employee’s property or the property of others is involved, provided that there is a public interest (for example, disruption of the building’s structure).

• An employee needs to clear up damage to his property.

Neither the wording of the Act nor the Decree implies a right to time off in cases where the employee’s property is damaged or endangered without meeting the public interest, see above.

However, if the employee did not come to work for urgent reasons because his property was endangered or damaged after the flood (the employee can prevent or mitigate substantial damage by his urgent action), it may be contrary to good morals to sanction the employee in such a situation. The employee must notify the employer of his/her absence and give proper reasons for it. In such a case, the employee is not entitled to wage compensation.

• The work site is affected by flooding.

If the employer’s headquarters, place of business, or the place where the employee performs his or her work activities is affected, multiple situations may occur:

1. The employer orders the employee to perform other work – the employer is entitled to assign the employee to work of a type other than that agreed in the employment contract in order to not only avert but also mitigate the consequences of a natural event, but only for the time strictly necessary, and the employee is entitled to full wages for the performance of such work;
2. Employee cannot do the work – if the employee cannot do the work due to, inter alia, a natural event and is not transferred to another job, then 60% of average earnings is due. This does not apply if telework is agreed and the employee can do the telework.

In conclusion, situations may arise that are not explicitly addressed by the legislation in the context of the regulation of obstacles to work. If there is an urgent and pressing interest of the employee in dealing with the current flood situation, but the legislation does not designate such a situation as an obstacle to work, this does not mean that the employee can be sanctioned for failing to report to work. If the employee properly apologises and justifies his absence, it can be concluded that any sanctions by the employer would be contrary to good morals. The employee must be able to prove the reasons.

Notwithstanding the limited explicit list of cases in which an employee is entitled to time off work, it is therefore necessary to assess all situations individually and to approach their resolution in this way.