Occupational health and safety in the workplace in the effort to prevent the spread of COVID-19

25. 02. 2026

Occupational health and safety is one of the components of employee protection in the performance of dependent work for an employer, safeguarding the employee’s physical integrity. Every employment relationship is defined, inter alia, by the place of work, and in accordance with this the employer determines by instruction the specific workplace at which dependent work will be performed. This thereby determines the place where the employer must carry out activity directed at the protection of life and health, and thus ensure an adequate degree of protection and a certain standard of safety for that place designated for work. This also includes the place where the employee performs dependent work for the employer within the framework of so-called home office, for which the Labour Code makes no exception in the area of occupational health and safety, and the same rules apply as in the performance of dependent work at the employer’s workplace.[1] The basic provision of the legal order securing this protection at the constitutional level is Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, according to which employees have the right to fair remuneration for work and to satisfactory working conditions. The relevant statute is above all the Labour Code, Part Five, entitled Occupational Health and Safety. In connection with the topic of this article, the most relevant provisions are Section 101(1) of the Labour Code, Section 102, Section 106, and further also Section 224(1), Section 248, and Section 349. Nor can one omit, in this context, the fundamental principle of labour law consisting in the right to satisfactory and safe working conditions under Section 1a(1)(b) of the Labour Code, to which the legislature attaches such importance that it placed it among the fundamental values on which the Labour Code is built. A characteristic feature of occupational health and safety regulation is that it cannot be comprehensively codified, given the multitude of statutes governing this area. These are primarily norms of a technical nature, emphasizing the specific features of the employer’s individual activities. In Section 107, the Labour Code merely refers to the Act on Ensuring Other Conditions of Occupational Health and Safety. This reference, however, by no means exhausts the special legal regulation vis-à-vis the Labour Code, and despite the fact that the Labour Code contains no explicit reference to such further regulation, it is to be applied preferentially by virtue of the interpretive principle lex specialis derogat legi generali. The details and specifics of the individual statutory provisions are typically implemented and specified by government regulations, which respond flexibly to the individual material sources of law. In the context of the pandemic, Government Regulation No. 495/2001 Coll., laying down the scope and more detailed conditions for the provision of personal protective equipment and washing, cleaning, and disinfecting agents, deserves mention, although no amendments were made to that regulation in connection with the pandemic. Nor can one overlook the regulation of European law, the influence of which on the domestic legal order is already apparent from Section 363 of the Labour Code, which refers to individual provisions of the Labour Code implementing EU law.

Requirements concerning workplace safety and health protection during work in the COVID-19 pandemic

General remarks on occupational health and safety in the workplace

The primary task of occupational health and safety is to prevent risks of injury to life or health arising from dependent work. Although the legislature uses the term “risk,” it does not define it more precisely. The concept of risk may be interpreted as the probability of harm arising to the life and health of employees, but also of third parties who are present in the workplace with the employer’s knowledge. The standard ČSN OHSAS 18001:2008 defines risk as “the combination of the likelihood of occurrence of a hazardous event or exposure and the severity of injury or ill health.” Risks may primarily be divided according to whether they are removable, that is, those which the employer can, or must, eliminate through active measures, and those which cannot be eliminated, in which case the employer is obliged to take all appropriate measures at least to minimize them. In practice, further categories such as acceptable, unacceptable, significant, insignificant, and the like are also commonly used.[2] Within the framework of the duty of prevention, the employer should continuously strive to eliminate risk, and if elimination is impossible, the employer should seek to reduce it to the lowest possible level, thereby preventing harm to life and health. The legislature refers to this activity as risk prevention. This means all measures arising from legal and other regulations to ensure occupational health and safety, as well as from the employer’s own measures, which are intended to prevent risks, eliminate them, or minimize the effect of unavoidable risks.[3] This follows from the employer’s duty to ensure and carry out tasks relating to the assessment and prevention of risks of possible threat to the life or health of employees.[4]

The legislature does not lay down any general rule determining the degree of risk, nor is that really possible by reason of the nature of the matter. In practice, there is a large number of methods used for risk assessment, and a detailed account of them would exceed the scope of this article; it is therefore more appropriate to refer, for a fuller explanation, to specialist literature.[5] In assessing risks associated with the spread of a highly infectious disease, there are countless variables, such as the type of work performed, the employer’s workplace, the number of employees at the workplace, and others. The Supreme Administrative Court has compared this approach of the current legal regulation of the Labour Code to “liability for the result,”[6] because the employer is obliged to ensure such a safe environment as can fairly be required of it, without the legislature providing it with an “instruction manual” as to how to do so, while the decisive factor is only the possible occurrence of injury to health or death in connection with the performance of dependent work. For this reason as well, it appears much more appropriate to construct a general duty of prevention, which, by means of a command addressed to the employer, requires it to protect the life and health of employees to the greatest extent possible in light of the individual circumstances, in accordance with the fundamental principle of labour law set out in Section 1a(1)(b) of the Labour Code.[7]

The employer, or a person designated by it, assesses risks individually in accordance with Section 9 of the Act on Ensuring Other Conditions of Occupational Health and Safety, both on the basis of the professional expertise presupposed by the law and on the basis of previous experience with risks at the particular workplace. If, after the occurrence of a workplace accident, the responsible person fails to take into account shortcomings in occupational safety and health protection for the future, that person exposes itself to the risk of a sanction for an administrative offence under Section 30(1)(o) of Act No. 251/2005 Coll., on Labour Inspection, according to which an employer commits an administrative offence in the field of occupational safety by failing to adopt measures to prevent the recurrence of workplace accidents. This may often appear strict from the employer’s perspective, which is why the Supreme Administrative Court, in its decision Case No. 2 As 123/2015, stated that: “it cannot be perceived absolutely, because by the nature of the matter certain risks cannot be completely avoided and entirely eliminated in a range of activities, except at the cost of wholly disproportionate expense or restriction of the activity in question. In this respect, the employer can therefore only be required to exert all efforts that can reasonably be demanded in the circumstances. Decisive for assessing whether the employer has complied with its duties will be consideration of the specific nature of the risks accompanying the relevant activity, their possible consequences, the probability of their occurrence, and the availability and cost of means of eliminating or minimizing them.”

Each employee performs work for the employer in a particular environment (place of work), where the employee encounters not only objects and equipment intended for the performance of the agreed work, but typically also other employees performing dependent work for the same employer or even for another employer. In the case of the presence of multiple employees of different employers at a common workplace, Section 101(3) of the Labour Code provides that such employers are obliged to inform one another in writing about the risks and the measures adopted to protect against them that concern the performance of work and the workplace, and to cooperate in ensuring occupational health and safety for all employees at the workplace. On the basis of a written agreement between the employers concerned, the employer designated by that agreement coordinates the implementation of measures to protect the safety and health of employees and the procedures for ensuring them. In its Section 106, the Labour Code encourages employers to enable employees to perform the work to which they have committed themselves in the best possible working environment that does not endanger the life and health of such persons. The costs incurred in securing a workplace that does not endanger life and health are always borne by the employer, which may not directly or indirectly shift this duty onto employees and thereby recoup costs incurred in this connection; this may also be described as an implementation of the principle that the employer may not transfer the risks arising from the employment relationship onto employees in accordance with Section 346b(2) of the Labour Code. Nor may the employer seek reimbursement for these protective means by reference to the employee’s remuneration received for the performance of dependent work. If risks of possible injury to health cannot be prevented because of the nature of the work performed (so-called residual risk), the employer is obliged to reduce such risk to a minimum.[8] This does not, however, relieve the employer of the duty to establish in the workplace as safe an environment as can fairly be required of it; in the event of a dispute, the burden of proof will lie on the employer,[9] which is obliged to keep documentation concerning the measures adopted in connection with the duty of prevention. For these purposes, Directive 89/391/EEC presupposes that such documentation be kept in writing, although that form is not explicitly required by law. Where legal norms effective in the field of occupational health and safety are breached and injury to health or death of an employee occurs in causal connection with such breach, the employee acquires a claim for damages on the basis of a workplace accident; in the event of the employee’s death, that claim passes to the employee’s legal successors and may be asserted before the civil courts as a claim for damages.

Typically, such an impairment of the employee’s health also imposes a burden upon society itself by reason of the provision of support during the period of incapacity for work from the funds of sickness insurance. For the employer, the employee’s absence from the workplace will also manifest itself in a reduction of workforce, the necessity of reacting flexibly to that reduction and reorganizing activities at the workplace, or temporarily assigning the workload to another employee. In the case of the employee’s long-term absence, it will typically be necessary to conclude a new employment relationship to compensate temporarily for the absence of that employee at the workplace. Bělina[10] described this effect as having an impact on the profitability and efficiency of work.

This preventive activity of the employer places high demands on flexible adaptation to the current degree of knowledge concerning the subject of the employer’s activity and, in connection with this, on achieving the highest possible degree of protection of life and health in the given place and time. The employer should adopt at the workplace all appropriate measures in line with modern technical development that are capable of protecting the life and health of employees to the extent that is possible in light of the degree of human knowledge in the field, thereby striving for a safe workplace.

The concept of safety may be defined as a set of various technical, technological, organizational, and other measures which, in the performance of dependent work, serve to protect specific persons at the workplace. These persons are primarily employees, but also other persons present at the workplace with the employer’s knowledge in accordance with Section 101(5) of the Labour Code, although in practice it is often difficult to prove the employer’s, or its designated persons’, knowledge of such other persons.[11]

Occupational health and safety at the workplace during the pandemic

Following the introductory excursus into occupational health and safety, which was necessary for a proper outline and coherent presentation of the issue, it is appropriate to apply the above principles together with the specific statutory provisions to the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is clear from the foregoing that no general advice can be given. Within the framework of the duty of prevention, the employer should reduce the risk of infection to a minimum. Above all, the employer should organize the activity of individual employees so that they do not come into personal contact to a greater extent than is necessary having regard to the employer’s activity. For this reason, work from home, so-called home office, under Section 317 of the Labour Code became very popular, as did other means of collective protection. Equally important, however, are washing, disinfecting, and protective means.

Under Section 104(3) of the Labour Code, the employer is obliged to provide employees with washing, cleaning, and disinfecting agents according to the extent of contamination of the skin and clothing. This provision primarily presupposes dirt arising in direct connection with the performance of work. However, the infectiousness of COVID-19 disease clearly justifies the provision of washing, cleaning, and disinfecting agents to employees also for the purpose of preventing the spread of infection at the workplace, having regard to the principle of risk prevention; for that reason, it is appropriate and highly desirable to equip the workplace with such means.[12]

Where risks cannot be eliminated or sufficiently reduced by means of collective protection or by organizational measures relating to work, the employer is obliged to provide employees with personal protective equipment. Means of collective protection, as measures directed generally at an indeterminate number of employees at the workplace, are to be used preferentially, as was also confirmed by the Supreme Administrative Court,[13] and for that reason the employer is obliged to provide medical or protective means only where risks cannot be prevented or reduced by collective protective measures, for example by strict separation of individual shifts, adapting the workplace so that each person has sufficient space around them that is not disturbed by another employee, and so forth.

It is clear that the allocation of specific protective means will be a response to the employer’s, or another designated person’s, risk assessment, and that the process of risk assessment must necessarily precede the decision on assigning protective means. This process will also be influenced by the subjective needs of individual employees. In this connection, the employer is obliged to create a list of personal protective equipment that it regards as suitable for preventing, or reducing, the spread of COVID-19 disease at the workplace. Such protective means are to be provided to employees free of charge. Under Section 3 of Government Regulation No. 495/2001 Coll., these means must, for the period of use, be effective against the risks present and their use must not itself give rise to any further risk. It is therefore the employer’s duty to replace such protective means in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations having regard to their service life and effectiveness. Furthermore, such protective means must correspond to the conditions of the workplace and be adapted to the physical characteristics of individual employees, taking into account their individual needs. Finally, they must comply with ergonomic requirements and the employees’ health status. In view of the high infectiousness of COVID-19 disease, it is clear that each protective means may be used by only one employee, as is also envisaged by paragraph 3 of Section 3 of Government Regulation No. 495/2001 Coll. For this reason, I am of the opinion that the employer is obliged to ensure at the workplace protection of the mouth and, where appropriate, the hands, as well as the presence of other personal protective equipment generally recommended for preventing the spread of COVID-19 at the workplace, to assign such protective means personally to each employee without the possibility of sharing them, and to provide for their proper replacement. The Ministry of Health takes the same view.[14] The collective of authors of the book Covid-19 and Private Law[15] recommends in its contribution communication by the employer with employees about the risks of infection and appeals for caution, especially with regard to personal hygiene, cleaning at the workplace, restricting access to the workplace to the necessary extent, maintaining distance between employees, and reducing business travel to a minimum.

Possibility for the employee to refuse performance of work at the workplace

An employee is entitled to refuse to perform work which the employee reasonably believes poses an immediate and serious threat to the employee’s life or health, or to the life or health of other natural persons, and if the conditions set out in Section 106(2) of the Labour Code are fulfilled, this does not constitute a breach of the employee’s duties. Thus, if the employee reasonably fears for their life and health in connection with COVID-19 disease, the employee may refuse to perform work. However, the employee may do so only where the fear for life or health is justified in light of the circumstances of the workplace and of the work performed, and where contracting COVID-19 appears to constitute an immediate and serious threat. These circumstances may be divided into objective and subjective ones. Objective circumstances will typically include the arrangement of the workplace, the number of infected persons at the workplace, poor hygiene connected with a lack of washing and disinfecting agents, and other circumstances that the employer may or may not influence and which thereby affect the reasonableness of the employee’s fear for life and health. Subjective circumstances may include the employee’s age, health predispositions, or fear for close persons in connection with the possibility of infecting them, typically persons living with the employee in a family household or persons cared for by the employee. These are therefore exceptional situations; the mere existence of an epidemic of COVID-19 disease cannot in itself be a reason for the employee to refuse to perform work duties. Such an exceptional situation may, for example, consist in a large number of infected employees at the workplace without any identified source of infection, in cases where the employer’s activity involves frequent personal contact among employees and all the surrounding circumstances show that the possibility of infection with COVID-19 is highly probable. Such a situation is, however, exceptional, having regard to the interference with the employer’s legitimate interests, and that is why this provision must be applied with restraint; it cannot be relied upon where the concrete circumstances do not justify it, that is, not in a situation of general fear of infection.

COVID-19 as an occupational disease

Coronavirus is a so-called droplet infection transmitted through the air from person to person in close interpersonal contact. It most often affects the mucous membranes of the upper and lower respiratory tract. Coronavirus can be regarded, with reference to Government Regulation No. 290/1995 Coll., as a so-called communicable and parasitic disease listed in Annex No. 1 to that regulation, Chapter V, item 1, or item 3 in the case of infection acquired abroad.

According to the position of the Committee of the Society of Occupational Medicine of the Czech Medical Association J. E. Purkyně concerning the conditions for recognizing COVID-19[16] as an occupational disease within the meaning of Government Regulation No. 290/1995 Coll., COVID-19 may be regarded as an occupational disease where certain conditions are fulfilled. According to the cited position, these conditions are that the employee contracted a clinically manifest disease with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, together with the condition that, during the incubation period, the employee was demonstrably in close contact with another employee who had tested positive for COVID-19, or with another such person while performing work tasks,[17] and that there was thus a demonstrable risk of infection present at the workplace. According to Tuček and Nakládalová,[18] “risk of infection” in this context means a higher probability of transmission of infection during the actual performance of work than in ordinary contact with other persons, even during an epidemic occurrence of the disease. Holubová and Kantorová[19] build upon the view of Tuček and Nakládalová and attempt to identify occupations[20] in which the performance of work is capable of generating a higher risk of COVID-19 infection than other interpersonal contact. The author of this article does not agree with that view, and adds that the required risk of infection during the performance of work occurs, in view of the infectiousness of COVID-19 disease, always at the workplace, regardless of whether the degree of risk is higher than in ordinary contact with persons outside work. If the notion of risk of infection were applied in the way suggested by Tuček and Nakládalová, the risk arising from the performance of dependent work would effectively be shifted from employers to employees, which would negate one of the basic principles of labour law. At the same time, employers would in effect be divided into those who employ workers at higher risk of infection and who would therefore be obliged to do everything in the field of occupational health and safety to protect their employees, and those where, because the risk of COVID-19 infection at the workplace is comparable to that in “ordinary life,” they would never be liable for the consequences in the form of COVID-19 infection, which would undoubtedly have the negative effect of reducing motivation to adopt the necessary occupational health and safety measures at the workplace and would also result in unjustified inequality before the law.

A further condition is that these mandatory conditions must have arisen in direct connection with the performance of work tasks. In the opinion of the Supreme Court (judgment of 24 February 2003, Case No. 21 Cdo 1148/2002), “acts performed in direct connection with the performance of work tasks are acts necessary for the performance of work and acts customary or necessary during work, before its commencement, or after its completion. Such acts do not, however, include travel to and from work, meals, medical treatment or examination at a health-care facility, nor travel to and from such a facility, unless such travel takes place within the employer’s premises.” It will therefore not include, for example, situations in which infection occurs while travelling to work by public transport.

For completeness, however, it is necessary to mention Decree of the Ministry of Health No. 4/2012 Coll., implementing Section 65(d) of Act No. 373/2011 Coll., on Specific Health Services, which restricted the applicability of the above to a certain list of diseases, even where the formal requirements for an occupational disease are otherwise met. This concerns cases of infection by a disease which does not progress into a chronic phase after treatment has ended, without the presence of clinical signs of disease, and where medical examination of the employee indicates recovery.

At present, however, it is not possible to determine with sufficient certainty what consequences COVID-19 disease may cause in the body. If, however, some of these consequences pass into a chronic phase, for example persistent pulmonary problems caused by having had COVID-19, or other chronic consequences demonstrably caused by COVID-19 which continue to affect the employee’s health even after recovery, it is possible to classify COVID-19 as an occupational disease.

If the employee did not suffer clinical symptoms of COVID-19 disease, one cannot speak of a clinically manifest disease. Where an employee tested positive and was in mandatory quarantine without symptoms, a claim for damages under Section 265(1) of the Labour Code may come into consideration, but only where the damage arose in the performance of work tasks or in direct connection with them as a result of a breach of legal duties or intentional conduct contrary to good morals, whether by other employees or by third parties with whom the employee came into contact in the performance of dependent work for the employer.[21] This view was also adopted by the Ministry of Health in its position statement of 30 March 2020.[22]

In its judgment of 23 May 2003, Case No. 21 Cdo 2308/2002, the Supreme Court addressed a similar case, the difference being that it concerned hepatitis B, and held that another mandatory element of claims arising from occupational disease is, above all, proof that the disease was actually present at the workplace; a mere assertion of a probability of infection at the workplace is therefore insufficient. This conclusion can also be applied to infection by COVID-19, where the risk of infection is high because of its contagiousness, not only at the workplace but, for example, among family members or on the way to work by public transport, and it is undoubtedly fair to insist on proof that the infection occurred precisely at the employer’s workplace. For this reason, judicial practice has adopted the approach that the employer must be given the opportunity to submit evidence clearly showing that the infection arose from causes unrelated to the work performed by the employee for that employer. In such cases, the particular COVID-19 infection of the employee could not be classified as an occupational disease.[23]

Partial conclusion

The employer is obliged to maintain a workplace that does not endanger life and health and in which persons are present whose protection the employer must ensure. These persons are not only employees but all persons present at the employer’s workplace with the employer’s knowledge. This duty of prevention is in no way dependent upon the legal classification of the disease whose spread threatens the workplace. Even where the conditions for classification of a disease as an occupational disease are not fulfilled, it is still a disease that threatens safety and health at the workplace.

Although the threat posed by an infectious disease does not directly relate to the employer’s business activity, in certain types of operations the risk of infection may be considerable, especially where there is a larger number of employees at the workplace. It cannot reasonably be required of the employer to adopt measures that would completely exclude the occurrence or spread of disease at the workplace. This is not possible especially in the case of highly contagious and infectious diseases such as COVID-19. In such cases, the employer is obliged to adopt all measures that can fairly be required of it and to reduce such risks to a minimum, above all through measures of collective protection, which take precedence over individual measures.

If, despite these measures, infection with an infectious disease nevertheless occurs at the workplace, something which cannot be entirely excluded even despite great efforts by the employer, certain employee claims may come into consideration. This chapter has dealt in particular with the question whether COVID-19 constitutes an occupational disease; other claims are largely analogous, having regard to current case law. The purpose of this work is not to set out generally all employee claims arising in connection with injury to life and health, but rather to draw attention to the specific features arising in connection with the spread of a contagious infectious disease.

If the employee seeks to assert claims associated with an occupational disease as a consequence of an infectious disease, that claim must be justified above all by the seriousness of the course of the illness, connected with clinical consequences that persist even after recovery. A mere positive test without symptoms, together with the resulting quarantine order, is therefore insufficient.

This article is written according to the legal framework as of 1 January 2022.

Citace:

^[1] TKADLEC, Matěj. Homeoffice dnes a zítra. Soukromé právo. Praha: Wolters Kluwer 2020, č. 9, s. 9.

^[2] PICHRT, Jan, STÁDNÍK, Jaroslav. Obecná ustanovení k zajištění bezpečné práce. In: BĚLINA, Miroslav, DRÁPAL, Ljubomír a kol. Zákoník práce. 3. vydání. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2019, s. 529.

^[3] Ustanovení § 102 odst. 2 ZP.

^[4] Ustanovení § 9 odst. 1 zákona o zajištění dalších podmínek bezpečnosti a ochrany zdraví při práci.

^[5] PICHRT, Jan, STÁDNÍK, Jaroslav. Prevence rizik. In: BĚLINA, Miroslav, DRÁPAL, Ljubomír a kol. Zákoník práce. 3. vydání. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2019, s. 541.

^[6] Rozsudek Nejvyššího správního soudu ze dne 16.9.2015, sp. zn.  2 As 123/2015.

^[7] Zásada nastolení uspokojivých a bezpečných podmínek pro výkon práce.

^[8] Toto riziko je do jisté míry zaměstnancům kompenzováno i samotným zákonodárcem, kdy v rámci pozitivní diskriminace zaměstnancům poskytuje například kratší týdenní pracovní dobou, větší zaručenou mzdou a v oblasti sociálního zabezpečení dřívějšího nástupu do starobního důchodů.

^[9] Rozsudek Nejvyššího soudu ze dne 20.2.2018, sp. zn.  21 Cdo 232/2017.

^[10] BĚLINA, Miroslav, PICHRT, Jan a kol. Pracovní právo. 7, dopl. a podstatně přeprac. vyd. Praha: C.H. Beck, 2017, 280 s.

^[11] k tomuto blíže PICHRT, Jan, STÁDNÍK, Jaroslav. Obecná ustanovení k zajištění bezpečné práce. In: BĚLINA, Miroslav, DRÁPAL, Ljubomír a kol. Zákoník práce. 3. vydání. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2019, s. 529.

^[12] K jednotlivým doporučením Sdělení Ministerstva zdravotnictví. Dostupné z: https://koronavirus.mzcr.cz/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/P%C5%99%C3%ADprava-pracovi%C5%A1t%C4%9B-na-covid-19_12052020.pdf.

^[13] Rozsudek Nejvyššího správního soudu ze dne 27.8.2014, sp. zn. 3 Ads 42/2014.

^[14] Sdělení Ministerstva zdravotnictví dostupné na https://koronavirus.mzcr.cz/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/P%C5%99%C3%ADprava-pracovi%C5%A1t%C4%9B-na-covid-19_12052020.pdf.

^[15] SELUCKÁ, Markéta a kol. Covid-19 a soukromé právo. Otázky a odpovědi 1. vydání. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2020, s. 43-46.

^[16] Stanovisko výboru Společnosti pracovního lékařství ČLS JEP k podmínkám uznání nemoci COVID-19 za nemoc z povolání ve smyslu nařízení vlády č. 290/1995 Sb. k datu 25.3.2020. Dostupné z: http://www.szu.cz/uploads/documents/szu/aktual/CoVID_19_jako_NzP.pdf.

^[17] Např. zákazník při obchodní schůzce. 

^[18] TUČEK, Milan, NAKLÁDALOVÁ, Marie. Covid-19 jako nemoc z povolání – stručná informace ke stavu v ČR. Časopis lékařů českých, 2020, č. 3-4, s. 157.

^[19] HOLUBOVÁ, Markéta, KANTOROVÁ, Diana, Onemocnění covid-19 jako nemoc z povolání - prvotní úvahy lékařské i právnické (právní stav k 31. 12. 2020), 2020, č. 3-4, s. 47.

^[20] Např. příslušníci IZS, pracovníci zařízení sociálních služeb s pobytovou sociální službou, pedagogičtí pracovníci atd.

^[21] Bez ohledu na výše uvedené má zaměstnanec v karanténě nárok na kompenzaci v podobě náhrady mzdy dle ustanovení § 192 odst. 1 ZP.

^[22] Sdělení Ministerstva zdravotnictví ze dne 30.3.2020. Dostupné z: https://koronavirus.mzcr.cz/lze-uznat-onemocneni-covid-19-jako-nemoc-z-povolani.

^[23] Rozsudek Nejvyššího soudu ze dne 21.1.2014, sp. zn. 21 Cdo 3689/2012

All articles