Balancing of Fundamental Rights by the Employer? Employer’s Margin of Manoeuvre to Order Mandatory Vaccination and to Terminate or Suspend the Labor Contract of Non-Vaccinated Employees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the (post-)COVID period, states rendered several restrictions of fundamental rights justified by the overarching interest in the protection of human life and public health. Among others, mandatory vaccination may be ordered by the employer, which imposes a clear limitation on employees’ rights to free conscience, self-determination, free occupation, and the right to work. Moreover, in several countries, the decision was vested in the employer for termination or suspension. In a public health emergency, strong arguments support the implementation and extension of mandatory vaccination requirements as well as further extraordinary steps, such as unprecedented allocation of competences, may be reasonable. Some countries opted for mandatory vaccination in healthcare institutions as either a condition of employment or a precondition for entering the institutions. In these cases, however, mainly states had to balance the colliding fundamental rights in order to determine an exact conclusion. On the contrary, involving private stakeholders (employers) in determining the scope of the mandatory vaccination requirement may overstep the lawfully increased margin of manoeuvre of state authorities during a public health emergency. Several states allowed mandatory vaccination in the private workplace on very differentiated grounds. Based on the comparison of three models constituted by Canada, Hungary, and Poland, our research outcome provides a proposed system of criteria for states to determine under which circumstances and under which limitations private employers may be authorized with the power of balancing fundamental rights, especially regarding mandatory vaccination.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".