Another bill was recently passed in the Sejm to help fight the pandemic Covid-19, the title: “about special solutions for protecting the lives and health of citizens during an epidemic COVID-19”. However, the bill proved controversial enough to be rejected by the Sejm. Since even the United Right did not defend its project, one might wonder if it was only propaganda to show concern for citizens.
But what could be controversial about the law? How did the legislator want to protect the lives and health of citizens? two The most important issues raised in the report concerned the unpaid performance of diagnostic tests by employees towards SARS-CoV-2 and the rules and procedures for granting compensation for virus infection SARS-CoV-2.
Another controversial solution was the granting of compensation for virus infection.
According to the bill, a worker, of course, would be entitled to a diagnostic test free of charge during the period of the epidemic or pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 financed by the Anti-Fraud Fund Covid-19.
This fund was regulated in Article 65 Act of 31 March 2020 amending the Act on Special Solutions for Prevention, Prevention and Control Covid-19, other infectious diseases and their emergency situations and certain other laws (Journal of Laws, item 568, as amended, hereinafter referred to as: the bill amending the Covid Act)[1].
This right would be granted once a week. At the same time, in the same article, there was a reservation that the frequency of the right to perform tests could be changed depending on the epidemiological situation in the country or the availability of tests.
In addition, an employer could require an employee within the prescribed time limit (but not less than 48 hours) no more than once a week, information on the negative outcome of the diagnostic test in the direction of SARS-CoV-2, performed not earlier than 48 hours before showing[2]. If the employee did not provide the employer with the above information, he would be treated as a person who did not undergo a diagnostic test in the direction SARS-CoV-2.
Another controversial solution was the granting of compensation for virus infection.
An employee who would have been confirmed to be infected with the virus and who would have reasonable suspicions that an infection occurred at the workplace or other workplace could submit to the employer within the time limit 2 months from the date of completion of isolation at home or hospitalisation due to COVID-19 an application for initiating proceedings for compensation for virus infection.
The benefit would benefit a worker who has not undergone a diagnostic test in the direction of SARS-CoV-2.
In the above application, the worker would indicate the circumstances justifying that the infection occurred in the workplace or in another place designated for the performance of his work and the person with whom he had contact at that establishment or place during the period prior to the infection, no longer than 7 days.
If the employer would confirm that the workers with whom the infected worker has been in contact are persons who have not undergone a diagnostic test, the employer shall not later than the time limit 3 the days would transmit the application of the virus infected worker to the voivode responsible for the site designated for the work, together with a list of staff who have not undergone a diagnostic test in the direction SARS-CoV-2, and who have been identified by the worker as the person with whom that worker has been in contact.
Would this bill, of course, have helped in combating the pandemic if it had not been rejected? While the possibility of free testing was not a bad idea, it seemed quite missed to be able to pay compensation for infection by other workers. Especially since such an infection would be difficult to prove unequivocally.
[1] Article 65(1) Act amending the Covid Act "The Fund for Action is set up in the Bank of the National Farm COVID-19, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Fund’, to finance or co-finance the implementation of countermeasure tasks COVID-19, referred to in Article 2(2) Act of 2 March 2020 specific prevention, prevention and eradication solutions COVID-19, other infectious diseases and the resulting crisis situations (Journal of Laws, items 374, 567, 568)”.
[2] The frequency of tests would also depend on the epidemiological situation or the availability of diagnostic tests.
Michał Zdanowski
Tax consultant at Russell Bedford Poland. Graduated from the Faculty of Law and Administration at the University of Warsaw, Graduate of the Postgraduate Tax and Tax Law Studies at the University of Warsaw, Graduate of the Postgraduate Accounting and Finance Studies of the Warsaw School of Economics. During his studies, he gained experience in law and tax law firms. Since September 2013 He is associated with Russell Bedford Poland. Specialises in documenting transactions between related parties.