New Ways of Working

Explore and keep track of key legal and compliance considerations for multinational employers as new ways of working become increasingly embedded as the pandemic begins to recede. Learn more about the response taken in specific countries or build your own report to compare approaches taken around the world.

Choose countries

 

Choose questions

Choose the questions you would like answering, or choose all for the full picture.

01. Has the government introduced any laws and/or issued guidelines around remote-working arrangements? If so, what categories of worker do the laws and/or guidelines apply to – do they extend to “gig” workers and other independent contractors?

01. Has the government introduced any laws and/or issued guidelines around remote-working arrangements? If so, what categories of worker do the laws and/or guidelines apply to – do they extend to “gig” workers and other independent contractors?

Flag / Icon

Switzerland

  • at Lenz & Staehelin

Swiss labour law, in particular the Swiss Code of Obligations, does not contain any specific rules regarding remote working. Remote working is governed by the general rules of labour law and, in particular, by the will of the parties to the employment contract (ie, employers and employees).

However, the Federal Act on the Statutory Principles for Federal Council Ordinances on combating the Covid-19 Epidemic (covid-19 Act) provided the Federal Council with a legal basis to implement remote working, should the need arise. The Federal Council made use of this provision and made remote working mandatory from 18 January 2021 to 26 June 2021 and again from 20 December 2021 onwards. In theory, mandatory remote working is set to end on 24 January 2022, but this measure could be extended if the Federal Council deems it necessary.

The remote-working obligation concerns all workers, provided that remote working was possible and did not lead to exorbitant costs. Employers are responsible for making sure that appropriate organisational and technical measures were in place.

Additionally, even between 26 June 2021 and 20 December 2021, when remote working was no longer obligatory, but rather merely recommended, an exception existed for employees at risk, including pregnant individuals and persons who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.

It also should be noted that on 10 June 2021, a motion was introduced in Parliament that would enact provisions covering remote working (eg, definitions, scope and issues related to health and safety and work and rest periods); this motion has been sent to committee for an initial review.

In conclusion, except for the Federal Council's decree requiring remote working between January and June 2021 and from 20 December 2021 onwards, no specific legal provisions govern remote working in Switzerland. 

Last updated on 20/01/2022

Flag / Icon

Turkey

  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners

Article 14 of the Turkish Labour Act (TLA) defines remote working as a contractual employment relationship in which employees carry out their duties from home or other locations outside the workplace, sometimes through digital platforms. Based on the TLA, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security recently prepared a Regulation on Remote Working (Regulation), which came into force on 10 March 2021.

The Regulation covers all employees who work remotely under article 14 of the TLA. In this regard, the said rules shall apply to all categories of employees defined under the TLA, including but not limited to fixed-term workers, temporary workers, part-time workers and full-time workers. On the other hand, independent contractors would not qualify as workers under the TLA, as they would not be working in a way that is dependent on a specific employer.

In addition, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security has published the ”Guideline on Remote Working During covid-19” (the Guideline), to increase awareness and share with all employers and employees any information and advice about potential scenarios, problems and economic risks, especially under occupational health and safety. Since all information included in the Guideline qualifies as a recommendation, it may apply to anyone working remotely, even after covid-19.

Last updated on 21/09/2021

02. Outline the key data protection risks associated with remote working in your jurisdiction.

02. Outline the key data protection risks associated with remote working in your jurisdiction.

Flag / Icon

Switzerland

  • at Lenz & Staehelin

Employers are required to respect the general Swiss data protection principles and rules. In particular, the Swiss Code of Obligations (SCO) states that the Federal Act on Data Protection (FADP) applies to the handling of employer personal data. The term "personal data" is defined as any information relating to an identified or identifiable person (individuals and companies).

Employers must ensure the security of the data they process. They must take appropriate organisational and technical measures to protect personal data against unauthorised processing or access, such as accidental or unauthorised destruction, loss, technical errors, falsification, theft, unlawful use, alteration, copying or any other undue processing. Moreover, employers also must control access and operations undertaken by employees.

One particularity of remote working is that employees' workstation and business data are located off sites. Meaning that third parties potentially could access this data.

To prevent data protection breaches, employers must institute appropriate technical and organisational measures and raise employee's awareness of data protection risks. These measures may include securing information systems, setting up authorisations and limiting access to concerned employees, and using a VPN. In addition, employees also should be made aware of the risks and procedures through in-house training and user manuals for the IT and security systems.

Last updated on 30/09/2021

Flag / Icon

Turkey

  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners

The key data protection risks associated with remote working are data security and the processing of additional personal data while working remotely.

Under article 12 of the Personal Data Protection Law numbered 6698 (the DPL), data controllers must take all administrative and technical measures necessary to prevent unlawful processing of personal data, to prevent unlawful access to personal data and to ensure the security of personal data.

The Regulation also stipulates that the employer must inform remote workers about workplace rules and applicable legislation concerning the protection and transfer of data related to the workplace and their assignments (which may include personal data). The Regulation also emphasises that employers must take all necessary measures for the security of data. Per the Regulation, in the remote-working agreement, the employer must determine the definition and scope of data that needs to be protected.

There is no guidance from the Turkish Data Protection Authority (DPA) concerning measures to be taken specifically for remote working. Its general Guideline for Personal Data Security (Data Security Guideline) and the principal decision of the Turkish Data Protection Board concerning measures required to be taken by data controllers for processing sensitive personal data (Board Resolution for Sensitive Personal Data Security) should be considered by employers. The measures listed in the Data Security Guideline and the Board Resolution for Sensitive Personal Data Security are not exhaustive. Employers must consider all necessary measures for cyber security. International guidelines and IT sector developments should also be considered.

Employers who have failed to take appropriate measures to protect the unlawful processing of or access to personal data may be required to pay an administrative fine amounting to between 40,179 Turkish lira and 2,678,859[1] Turkish lira. Furthermore, additional technical measures taken for remote-working opportunities must also be communicated to the Data Controllers’ Registry if the employer is required to register data-processing activities (eg, employers located in Turkey that have more than 50 employees or have a balance sheet of more than 25 million lira fall under this obligation). Otherwise, although it may not be an imminent risk, an administrative sanction amounting to between 53,572 lira and 2,678,859 lira may be applied against the employer.

Lastly, if having remote-working employees requires an employer to process additional employee data, then the employer must inform their employees accordingly by providing an appropriate privacy notice under the DPL. Otherwise, they may be fined between 13,391 lira and 267,886 lira. The employer should determine what legal ground should be applied to the data processing due to remote working. If the applicable legal ground is consent but consent is not obtained lawfully from employees, then the employer may face an administrative fine of between 40,179 lira and 2,678,859 lira for unlawful processing. 


[1] All administrative fine amounts mentioned in this questionnaire will be updated for each year based on a re-evaluation determined annually.

Last updated on 09/02/2022

03. What are the limits on employer monitoring of worker activity in the context of a remote-working arrangement and what other factors should employers bear in mind when monitoring worker activity remotely?

03. What are the limits on employer monitoring of worker activity in the context of a remote-working arrangement and what other factors should employers bear in mind when monitoring worker activity remotely?

Flag / Icon

Switzerland

  • at Lenz & Staehelin

According to Swiss legislation, control or surveillance systems that are primarily intended to monitor the behaviour of employees are prohibited if they are detrimental to the health or well-being of employees. Health is understood in its broad sense and also includes mental health. There are no strict limits as to what surveillance is, but measures must always be proportional.

The European Court of Human Rights, whose Convention has been ratified by Switzerland, has laid down seven guiding principles for contracting states concerning legal surveillance of employees. These principles relate to information, the scope of surveillance, legitimacy of the reasons for surveillance, use of the least intrusive means, the consequences of surveillance, guarantees offered to employees and the principle of trust.

As an example, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, which is the highest judicial authority in Switzerland, has ruled that it is unlawful for employers to install spyware without employees' knowledge to check whether they are using the internet for private purposes. In that case, the court held that the system was capable of exerting control over employees' behaviour, which is prohibited. It also held that the surveillance was disproportionate since the employer simply could have blocked access to certain websites.

The above-mentioned principles must also be complied with when it comes to remote working, which does not differ fundamentally from onsite working.

Last updated on 30/09/2021

Flag / Icon

Turkey

  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners

One way to monitor employee activity in the context of remote working could be to control employees’ use of servers, e-mail accounts and internet while using the employer’s equipment. In Turkey, it is generally accepted that employers are authorised to control employees’ use of servers, e-mail accounts and internet from their equipment within the scope of their right to manage, and there are no particular rules or exceptions as to remote working.

However, even though employers are entitled to such control, monitoring should be proportional to the legitimate purposes of the employer, such as controlling productivity and quality, or providing security. Employers should inform their employees about monitoring on the equipment and servers as well as the reasons for it. Furthermore, employers must provide necessary information about the scope of their monitoring activities to employees under the DPL. Otherwise, there is a risk of an administrative fine.

Employers should also bear in mind that, during such monitoring, they must avoid violating privacy rights. The Constitutional Court recently held that if employees are informed that their e-mails are monitored, the secrecy of private life and freedom of communication must not be violated. The Constitutional Court also stated that the conflicting interests of the employer and employees should be balanced fairly and any intervention by monitoring e-mail accounts should be evaluated on the grounds of proportionality and the legitimate purposes of the employer.

From a data privacy perspective, employers firstly should determine what personal data needs to be processed to if employers have a legitimate interest to monitor employees’ activities, whether the processing of such data may potentially harm employees considering their rights, and whether employers have any options other than processing such personal data when trying to achieve this legitimate interest. Employers must apply a balance test to determine whether its legitimate interest overrides the personal rights and interests of their employees. Otherwise, employers cannot depend on legitimate interest as a legal ground for processing and will need the explicit consent of their employees to apply the relevant monitoring tool. In any case, if any monitoring requires the processing of sensitive personal data, consent will be required as per the DPL. Even if consent is given to employers, this does not mean that they can use monitoring tools to process any personal data that is not required to achieve the legitimate purposes of the monitoring. Any processing in contravention of the DPL (including the general principles applicable to data processing) may impose a risk of an administrative fine.

In light of the above, each monitoring tool considered by employers must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for determining which legal ground is applicable and to what extent.

Last updated on 21/09/2021

04. Are employers required to provide work equipment (for example, computers and other digital devices) or to pay for or reimburse employees for costs associated with remote working (for example, internet and electricity costs)?

04. Are employers required to provide work equipment (for example, computers and other digital devices) or to pay for or reimburse employees for costs associated with remote working (for example, internet and electricity costs)?

Flag / Icon

Switzerland

  • at Lenz & Staehelin

The SCO distinguishes between work equipment or materials and work expenses.

Work equipment and materials, such as phones or laptops, must be provided by employers when they are necessary to carry out the work. However, contracting parties can decide among themselves that employees will provide the work equipment or materials. In such a case, employees are entitled to an appropriate allowance, unless otherwise agreed upon. Work expenses, such as electricity, rent, a telephone or internet plan, generally must be borne by the employer, provided they are necessary to carry out the work. It is not possible to derogate from this rule to the detriment of employees, and employers cannot pass some or all of the costs to employees.

There are several possibilities when it comes to passing costs along to remote workers; employers can provide work equipment and materials or employees can use their own private devices. Instruments and materials that are used for both private and professional purposes are not deemed necessary, since it is considered that employees would have acquired these instruments or materials in any case, even if they are used professionally. This reasoning also applies to private furniture, at least when the exercise of the professional activity does not require the purchase of additional furniture.

Regarding expenses, (eg, rent for private office space or extra rooms), a distinction should be made between three cases: (i) forced remote working for the employee and the employer due to external circumstances (eg, covid-19); (ii) remote working imposed by the employer on the employee (eg, because there are no offices available for the employee); and (iii) remote working agreed upon between the employer and the employee for reasons of personal convenience.

In the first case, which usually occurs when there are extraordinary and unforeseeable circumstances, such as the covid-19 pandemic, the employer must reimburse the employee for expenses incurred to carry out work from home (eg, extra costs for business telephone calls). However, the employer does not have to pay employees’ fixed costs such as rent, internet or a private telephone package.

In the second case, expenses incurred to carry out work from home and which the employee usually does not incur must be borne by the employer. This opinion was followed by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, which ruled in 2019 that an employer had to pay a portion of an employee's rent because it did not provide the employee with a workspace. This solution also should apply to remote working carried out at the request of the employer.

In the third case (when working from home is the employee's choice), the employer has the right to waive, in writing, compensation for expenses related to remote working, as the remote working costs result from the employee's choice and are not imposed by circumstances or by the employer.

In conclusion, the question of equipment and materials, as well as the question of expenses, depends on the will of the contracting parties and on the situation in which remote working is carried out. Therefore, a case-by-case examination is necessary to determine who bears remote-working expenses.

During the mandatory remote-working period decreed by the Swiss Federal Council from 18 January to 26 June 2021, employees were not entitled to any reimbursement of expenses, since mandatory remote working was a temporary injunction from the authorities. However, as the decree did not contain any provisions covering work equipment and materials, the general provisions of the SCO applied.

Last updated on 30/09/2021

Flag / Icon

Turkey

  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners

As per article 7 of the Regulation on Remote Working, it is essential that the materials and working tools required for the remote employee’s work are provided by the employer, unless otherwise agreed in writing.

In practice, many global companies adopt policies to make further payments to employees to reimburse office supplies, internet, etc. Therefore, it may be favourable to reimburse employees for costs associated with remote working.

Last updated on 21/09/2021

05. What potential issues and risks arise for employers in the context of cross-border remote-working arrangements?

05. What potential issues and risks arise for employers in the context of cross-border remote-working arrangements?

Flag / Icon

Switzerland

  • at Lenz & Staehelin

Remote working has labour, social security and tax law repercussions for employees whose contractual place of work is Switzerland, but are resident in and work remotely from an EU border country. Issues related to remote working from outside the EU are not discussed.

First, regarding labour law, remote working creates a second place where employees carry out their activity. In the event of a dispute, the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters provides that employees may initiate proceedings in the state where their employer has their residence or seat, or in the state where they habitually carry out that work. According to EU case law, an employee's residence can be considered their habitual place of work if they carry out 60% or more of their professional activity there. This criterion only can be excluded if it is shown that based on qualitative criteria, another place is the centre of employees' activities. Swiss case law is less specific than EU case law and only refers to the place where the centre of the activity is located.

Furthermore, remote working also can have repercussions on the law applicable to the contract. European Regulation 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) indicates that the contract is governed by the law chosen by the parties. However, if a case is brought before a court in the EU, this legislation provides that the choice of the parties cannot override the mandatory employee protection rules applicable in the state where the employee habitually work. Therefore, there is a risk that the law applicable to the contract (eg, Swiss law) could be replaced by the law of the state in which an employee lives.

Second, concerning social security law, employees are usually subject to the social security system of the place where the activity is carried out.  Thus, if employees carry out the entirety of their activity in Switzerland, they are subject to Swiss social security. Conversely, if they perform their entire activity in the EU, they are subject to the social security system of that state. According to European Regulation 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, if the activity is carried out in multiple states (eg, partly at the employer's Swiss offices and partly in their state of residence), employees are subject to the social security system of the state in which they reside if they carry out a substantial part (25% or more) of their activity there. Otherwise, employees are subject to the Swiss social security system.

Third, remote working also can have an impact on tax law. In general, taxation in Switzerland is based on residence. However, a person who has neither their residence nor a habitual abode in Switzerland nevertheless may be taxed based on an economic connection with Switzerland, such as the exercise of a gainful activity. Thus, employees who carry out their entire professional activity at home by working from home (outside Switzerland) would have to pay taxes in that state, as a condition for carrying out gainful activity in Switzerland is a physical presence in Switzerland. Employees who carry out part of their work abroad are taxed proportionally in Switzerland and the other states.

The covid-19 pandemic led to some derogations from the above principles. 

In terms of labour law, the widespread remote working connected to the covid-19 crisis is considered to be temporary and thus does not provide a basis for an employee’s state of residence to be considered their usual place of work. Consequently, employees who carry out a substantial part, or even all, of their professional activity by working from home due to covid-19 are not deemed to be habitually working from home within the meaning of the EU regulation, provided that this situation remains temporary.

In terms of social security law, the applicable system is not affected by covid-19-related restrictions. Switzerland has agreed with neighbouring countries that an increase in the time spent by employees of a Swiss company in their state of residence due to the increase in remote working shall have no impact on social security. A flexible application of social security rules has been agreed upon with Germany, Italy, Austria and Liechtenstein and is effective until 30 June 2022. For France, this is effective until at least 31 March 2022. For other states, in principle, this also will apply until 30 June 2022.

In terms of tax law, Switzerland also has agreed with certain neighbouring countries that an increase in the time spent by employees of a Swiss company in the territory of their state of residency due to the increase in remote working shall have no tax impact. The agreement with France was signed on 13 May 2020, and the agreement with Germany was signed on 11 June 2020. These agreements remain in force until at least 31 March 2022. The agreement with Italy, dated from June 2020, is still in force and is tacitly extended on a month-to-month basis provided that neither country terminates it.

Last updated on 20/01/2022

Flag / Icon

Turkey

  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners

Theoretically, cross-border remote-working arrangements are possible from an employment law perspective as the law does not provide a clear rule or restriction on this. However, in practice, the Social Security Institution does not consider days worked overseas as workdays subject to social security premiums. Therefore, such arrangements may not be possible.

Employers located in Turkey must consider their data privacy obligations where employees are working in the context of cross-border remote-working arrangements, because the relevant obligations are mostly applicable on a residency basis due to the principle of territoriality. On the other hand, under Turkish legislation, employers must ensure the security of data shared with the relevant employees.

In addition, employers should bear in mind that any data shared with such employees would be an overseas transfer of data. As a result, if the transferred data contains personal data, consent must be obtained for such transfer of data abroad from the data subject, covering the purpose of processing this data unless the employers have permission from the DPA for the relevant international transfer. International transfers of personal data are restricted in Turkey. Unlike GDPR, the DPL does not protect international transfers in the European Economic Area (EEA) as Turkey is not in the EEA and standard contractual clauses do not apply to the transfer of personal data from Turkey to overseas.

Depending on the sector in which employers are engaged, there may be further data-residency and data-localisation requirements. Therefore, before any cross-border remote-working arrangements, employers must evaluate whether they are subject to such requirements and how they should approach the data to be processed by the relevant employees for their duties and assignments on a case-by-case basis.

Last updated on 21/09/2021

06. Do employers have any scope to reduce the salaries and/or benefits of employees who work remotely?

06. Do employers have any scope to reduce the salaries and/or benefits of employees who work remotely?

Flag / Icon

Switzerland

  • at Lenz & Staehelin

The payment of salary constitutes one of the employers' main obligations under an employment contract. This obligation exists even in the case of remote working and, therefore, it is not possible to reduce salary due to remote working.

Regarding benefits, a distinction must be made between different types. For example, it could be considered that employers who provide a car or a transport pass to employees could waive this benefit or reduce it proportionally if employees carry out all, or part, of their professional activity from home. However, if employees are paid meal allowances, it may be more difficult to justify removing this benefit, although the situation is less clear in situations in which employers provides employees with free meals.

Last updated on 30/09/2021

Flag / Icon

Turkey

  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners

As per article 14 of the TLA, remote workers cannot be treated differently from a comparable worker solely due to the nature of their employment contract. Employers cannot reduce the salaries or benefits of employees who work remotely merely on grounds of remote working. However, if there is other justification, such treatment may be acceptable.

Last updated on 21/09/2021

08. Can employers require or mandate that their workers receive a covid-19 vaccination? If so, what options does an employer have in the event an employee refuses to receive a covid-19 vaccination?

08. Can employers require or mandate that their workers receive a covid-19 vaccination? If so, what options does an employer have in the event an employee refuses to receive a covid-19 vaccination?

Flag / Icon

Switzerland

  • at Lenz & Staehelin

Generally speaking, employers must take measures to protect the health of employees. However, in principle, they are not entitled to require employees to be vaccinated, unless there is an overriding interest based on the principle of proportionality.

The State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) has stated that an employer can require employees to be vaccinated under specific circumstances, such as when there is an elevated risk of contamination that cannot be mitigated via other protection measures. Further, the employer must weigh the different interests (ie, the employee's private life versus the covid risk) for each individual case. Moreover, the SECO has stated that a company may not impose a general vaccination obligation.

If vaccination can be mandatory and if an employee refuses to be vaccinated, their employer could terminate the employment contract. That decision must be proportionate and must be based on the specific circumstances of the case.

Last updated on 20/01/2022

Flag / Icon

Turkey

  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners

As per the Constitution, a person’s physical integrity cannot be interfered with except for medical necessity and exceptions set out by the law. As the covid-19 vaccination is not defined as a mandatory vaccine under the applicable laws, employers cannot make vaccinations mandatory for employees in principle. Indeed, the Ministry of Health announced that covid-19 vaccinations are voluntary.

The only mandatory vaccine under the current legislative framework is the smallpox vaccine.

The majority of Turkish academics take the view that termination for refusal to take a vaccine would not constitute rightful or valid grounds for termination. It also would not comply with the principle of termination being the last resort, as employers may proceed with other options such as encouraging employees to get vaccinated or implementing remote working. However certain academics argue that refusing to take a covid-19 vaccine may be valid grounds for termination in exceptional cases (such as employees in elderly care institutions).

The Ministry of Labour and Social Security issued a general letter dated 2 September 2021 regarding vaccination and testing policies that employers may apply in workplaces. The letter suggested  employers should: (i) inform all employees about protective and preventive measures against potential health and safety risks at the workplace; (ii) provide separate information in writing to employees whose covid-19 vaccinations are not complete; (iii) inform unvaccinated employees about the potential results of receiving a covid-19 diagnosis due to unvaccination within the scope of the labour and social security legislation; (iv) require that unvaccinated employees have regular PCR tests once a week as of 6 September 2021; and (v) record the test results at the workplace for any necessary action.

The fact that these arrangements were introduced by a letter from the Ministry  was heavily criticised by legal academics and practitioners, and legislators were expected to bring a law into force soon. However, pursuant to the changing policies of Turkish government regarding covid-19 as evidenced in a letter dated 14 January 2022 from the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Internal Affairs issued a new general letter on 15 January 2022 that limited the scope of mandatory PCR testing.

Please see question 10 regarding a new general letter issued by the Ministry of Internal Affairs concerning limits on mandatory PCR testing requirements.

Last updated on 09/02/2022

09. What are the risks to an employer making entry to the workplace conditional on an individual worker having received a covid-19 vaccination?

09. What are the risks to an employer making entry to the workplace conditional on an individual worker having received a covid-19 vaccination?

Flag / Icon

Switzerland

  • at Lenz & Staehelin

Except in the abovementioned exceptional cases, employers prohibiting unvaccinated employees from working would be obliged to pay these employees their full salary, even though they did not perform their work.

Employers who have opted to implement measures requiring employees to present a covid certificate should use the Covid Certificate Check application to verify whether employees have a valid covid certificate. The Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (FDPIC) has said that employers should avoid keeping a list of employees with a valid covid certificate, or otherwise storing such data, as the employer could be considered to be processing sensitive personal data and thus subject to the rules set forth in the Swiss Data Protection Act (DPA). 

Further, the covid certificate can be presented for verification by the Covid Certificate Check application in either its original version or the "light version". With the original version, it is possible to see whether the employee was vaccinated, recovered from covid or received a test; the "light version" only shows whether the employee has a valid covid certificate. The FDPIC recommends the use of the "light version" in workplaces, as less personal data is visible.

Moreover, this information may not be used for purposes other than determining appropriate workplace protective measures and implementing a testing plan.

Last updated on 20/01/2022

Flag / Icon

Turkey

  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners

As mentioned above, employers are under an obligation to protect their employees. This means that employers should consider the health of employees working at physical premises. On the other hand, as explained above, employers cannot force employees to get vaccinated, and making entry to the workplace conditional on an individual worker receiving a covid-19 vaccination may be construed as pressure by the labour courts.

Please see question 10 regarding the option of requesting mandatory PCR testing.

Last updated on 09/02/2022

10. Are there some workplaces or specific industries or sectors in which the government has required that employers make access to the workplace conditional on individuals having received a Covid-19 vaccination?

10. Are there some workplaces or specific industries or sectors in which the government has required that employers make access to the workplace conditional on individuals having received a Covid-19 vaccination?

Flag / Icon

Switzerland

  • at Lenz & Staehelin

No. However, with cases of covid-19 on the rise, the question of whether people working in specific fields, such as the health sector, should be required to be vaccinated is hotly debated.

Last updated on 30/09/2021

Flag / Icon

Turkey

  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners

No. As mentioned above, the Ministry of Health has stated that the covid-19 vaccination is available voluntarily. Also, according to the Ministry of Labour and Social Security’s general letter, mandatory PCR testing was regulated as a voluntary mechanism at the employer’s discretion, considering different working methods in all workplaces.

On the other hand, the Ministry of Internal Affairs issued a separate circular, which regulated mandatory PCR testing before attending collective activities such as a concert, cinema or theatre; or undergoing intercity travel by plane, bus, train or other means of public transportation, except for private vehicles. Before, it could be possible to say that, in addition to the attendees, employees who facilitate these activities could also be requested to provide a negative PCR test result if they are unvaccinated. Likewise, the Ministry of Education introduced a similar practice at schools. All unvaccinated school staff encountering students face-to-face had to undergo mandatory PCR testing twice a week.

However, as of 14 January, no mandatory PCR testing is deemed required for the following individuals even if they are unvaccinated (or their vaccination processes are not complete) or are not recovered from covid-19 within the past 180 days:

  • those undergoing intercity travel by plane, bus, train or other means of public transportation;
  • those who attend collective activities such as a concert, cinema or theatre;
  • all school staff working at Ministry of Education schools (teachers, service drivers, etc);
  • employees of public and private workplaces; and
  • those attending student camps organised by public or private institutions;

However, mandatory PCR testing is still required for the following individuals:

  • employees of nursing homes, aged-care facilities, prisons or penitentiaries who are unvaccinated or not recovered from covid-19 within the last 180 days, or their vaccination process is not complete;
  • prisoners and convicts at prisons or penitentiaries;
  • those traveling abroad (subject to the rules of the travelled country); and
  • those undergoing intercity travel by plane who are unvaccinated or not recovered from covid-19 within the past 180 days, or their vaccination process is not complete.

With that in mind, all these announcements were qualified as recommendations in terms of their binding power, and therefore several Turkish scholars take the view that employers, especially by gathering Occupational Health and Safety Councils (if they exist), can still decide to mandate PCR testing to ensure occupational health and safety at workplaces by complying with the personal data protection rules.

Last updated on 09/02/2022

11. What are the key privacy considerations employers face in relation to ascertaining and processing employee medical and vaccination information?

11. What are the key privacy considerations employers face in relation to ascertaining and processing employee medical and vaccination information?

Flag / Icon

Switzerland

  • at Lenz & Staehelin

Employers cannot access employee data related to vaccination status, and the processing of such data is not permitted.

Regarding the protection of other data, employers and employees based in Switzerland are subject to the FADP. Under that Act, personal data is any information relating to an identified or identifiable person. Health-related data is considered to be "sensitive personal data" and is subject to specific protections. Medical data, therefore, would be subject to the requirements for processing sensitive personal data.

Several principles guide the processing of data. The principle of lawfulness of processing states that personal data only can be processed lawfully. This means that such action requires a justifiable reason, which could be the consent of the subject, a predominant public or private interest or a legal provision. In the context of employment relationships, the validity of employees' consent as a justification is often called into question, given the unequal relationship inherent in any employment contract (thus preventing the employee from consenting freely).

According to the principle of good faith, it is not permitted to collect personal data without the knowledge and consent of the person concerned. Anyone who deceives that person is in violation of the principle of good faith. The collection of personal data and the purposes of the processing must be recognisable to the subject.

According to the principle of proportionality, only data necessary and suitable for the set purpose may be processed. In addition, according to the principle of purpose, data collected may only be processed for the purposes that were communicated at the time of collection, that arise from the circumstances or that are provided for by law. Finally, the principle of accuracy implies that the processor of personal data must ensure the data is accurate and, if necessary, correct data that is no longer accurate.

In addition, under certain circumstances, EU General Data Protection Regulation also may apply to Swiss companies. However, its general requirements and principles are similar to those of the FADP.

Last updated on 20/01/2022

Flag / Icon

Turkey

  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners

Medical and vaccination information can be processed by employers only with the explicit consent of employees. In labour law, considering the dynamics between employers and employees, any consent given by employees may be challenged as it may not be voluntary. Therefore, the processing of such health data, even with the consent of employees, would impose risks upon employers from a data protection perspective.

Last updated on 21/09/2021

12. What are the key health and safety considerations for employers in respect of remote workers?

12. What are the key health and safety considerations for employers in respect of remote workers?

Flag / Icon

Switzerland

  • at Lenz & Staehelin

In general, employers must take necessary measures to protect the life, health and safety and personal integrity of employees. They must avoid demanding excessive effort from employees and may not burden them with work that could damage their health. Therefore, they have to organise workflow in such a way as to not overwork employees. They also have communication and training obligations, in particular, informing employees and instructing them on risk-prevention measures. Employers generally must ensure that employees' workplaces are properly designed, taking into account equipment, buildings and the working environment.

These measures also apply to remote working and employers are not relieved of their obligation to protect employees' health and safety when work is performed offsite. In the case of remote working at the employer's request, employers have to ensure that employees are provided with the necessary equipment to comply with these conditions or if necessary offer financial compensation for employees to make the necessary arrangements themselves. In any case, employers should ensure that employees are made aware of the health risks involved with remote working, in particular concerning the workplace layout working hours and rest periods.

Last updated on 30/09/2021

Flag / Icon

Turkey

  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners

As per article 12 of the Regulation on Remote Working, employers must inform employees about the occupational health and safety measures required for remote working, provide necessary training, ensure health inspections, and take necessary measures about any equipment provided to employees.

Also, article 4 of the Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331 further stipulates that employers, in general, must:

  • ensure that all safety measures, including but not limited to those preventing occupational risks and providing information and training, are taken; order in the workplace; all necessary tools and equipment are supplied; health and safety measures are adjusted to changing conditions; and that the current status of the workplace improves;
  • supervise and monitor whether the occupational health and safety measures are complied with, and correct any incompatibilities;
  • conduct or ensure a risk assessment;
  • pay attention to an employee’s suitability for a role in the scope of health and safety; and
  • take the necessary measures so that employees, other than those who receive adequate information and instruction, to not enter places that would lead to life-threatening or a particular danger.

However, Turkish academics argue that several health and safety obligations may not apply to remote working, as it may not be practically possible to apply them. For instance, they state that certain obligations arising from the occupational health and safety legislation such as preparing an emergency plan, firefighting, first aid, and evacuation are not applicable to remote working, as it would be unreasonable to expect employers to fulfil these kinds of obligations regarding a place outside their authority.

To conclude, along with the obligations set out under the Regulation on Remote Working, employers should comply with general occupational health and safety obligations, where applicable.

Last updated on 09/02/2022

13. How has the pandemic impacted employers’ obligations vis-à-vis worker health and safety beyond the physical workplace?

13. How has the pandemic impacted employers’ obligations vis-à-vis worker health and safety beyond the physical workplace?

Flag / Icon

Switzerland

  • at Lenz & Staehelin

When remote working first was decreed on 18 January 2021, employers had to act quickly to implement the remote-working obligation, while also protecting the health and safety of employees.

Thus, employers had to think differently about how to raise awareness among employees, especially concerning working hours and rest periods. Employers also had to ensure that employees were provided with adequate equipment and materials, such as a suitable office chair that was safe for their backs or a workroom that met the safety and hygiene standards set by the FOPH. In addition, the authorities also issued guidelines for employees.

Last updated on 20/01/2022

Flag / Icon

Turkey

  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners

Please see question 12. The general health and safety obligations of employers do apply to the performance of tasks at or beyond the physical workplace, as much as is practicable. However, employers must avoid breaches of the right to privacy, and therefore cannot intervene in an employee’s private life beyond the physical workplace.

Last updated on 21/09/2021

14. Do employer health and safety obligations differ between mobile workers and workers based primarily at home?

14. Do employer health and safety obligations differ between mobile workers and workers based primarily at home?

Flag / Icon

Switzerland

  • at Lenz & Staehelin

In contrast to other legal systems, Swiss legislation does not recognise the concept of "mobile workers". Therefore, mobile workers are considered to be employees without a fixed place of work (ie, those who work in several different locations or who travel in the course of their work). "Workers based primarily at home" are employees who do not necessarily have a workplace provided by their employers, but who are mainly in one place, (ie, their home).

Swiss law does not contain different regulations for these two categories of workers.

However, in practice, employers' recommendations will differ based on the worker's situation.  It can be assumed that when employees do not have a fixed place of work, employers will have to take this into account more in their recommendations, since the employee has fewer possibilities for an "appropriate" workstation. Also, employers will have to be more attentive to the working hours of a "mobile worker". 

Last updated on 30/09/2021

Flag / Icon

Turkey

  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners

Turkish law does not differentiate between remote workers being mobile or primarily at home. As remote working is legally defined as performing at home or outside the workplace through technological communication devices under an employer’s direction, there are no particular rules applicable to mobile workers or workers based primarily based at home. Both categories may be considered as remote workers.

Last updated on 21/09/2021

15. To what extent are employers responsible for the mental health and wellbeing of workers who are working remotely?

15. To what extent are employers responsible for the mental health and wellbeing of workers who are working remotely?

Flag / Icon

Switzerland

  • at Lenz & Staehelin

Employers are responsible for the health and well-being of employees, including their mental health. However, Swiss law does not provide a general definition of the protection of mental health. In any case, employers cannot be indifferent to the mental health of their employees. They have a duty to help, to reduce tensions, resolve relational conflicts, prevent harassment and protect employees from rumours and bullying. Wherever possible, employers must accommodate employees whose mental health is at risk so that they can continue to work, (eg, by moving the employees' workplace).

These obligations also apply to remote working.

Last updated on 30/09/2021

Flag / Icon

Turkey

  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners

As mentioned above, employers must take all necessary occupational health and safety measures and protect employees’ health, and physical and mental integrity. Also, according to article 417 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, employers must have all necessary equipment and tools available to protect health and safety.

The same article further provides that employers must: protect and respect the personality of their employees; ensure order in the workplace in compliance with the principle of good faith; and take any necessary measures to prevent employees from being exposed to psychological and sexual harassment and from being subject to further harm, if such an incident took place.

Last updated on 21/09/2021

17. To what extent have employers been able to make changes to their organisations during the pandemic, including by making redundancies and/or reducing wages and employee benefits?

17. To what extent have employers been able to make changes to their organisations during the pandemic, including by making redundancies and/or reducing wages and employee benefits?

Flag / Icon

Switzerland

  • at Lenz & Staehelin

Regarding wages, authorities have extended the use of pre-existing "reduced working hour allowances". This measure is intended to avoid dismissals following a brief but unavoidable absence from work. According to the system now in place, under certain conditions, employers have the right to (fully or partially) reduce the working hours of their employees and apply for allowances for reduced working-hour allowances. Those allowances cover up to 80% of wages related to the reduced hours. The hours effectively worked still are fully remunerated by the employer.

The Swiss Federal Council has decided to keep in place a procedure for a simplified calculation of the allowances for reduced working-hour allowances until 31 December 2022.

In addition, employees infected by covid-19 and unable to work due to illness are entitled to the payment of their salary under the same conditions as for any other illness-related incapacity. In particular, the salary would not be paid if an employee voluntarily travels to an area at risk or disregarded basic rules of caution and hygiene. If employees are stranded abroad because the authorities ordered a quarantine or return flights were cancelled, employers may refuse to pay their salary.

Last updated on 20/01/2022

Flag / Icon

Turkey

  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners

In the scope of covid-19-related measures, the termination of employment contracts by employers was prohibited for three months from 17 April 2020, with certain exceptions. With further extensions, this ban was extended to 30 June 2021. Therefore, redundancies have been prohibited from 17 April 2020 to 30 June 2021, and any breach of this ban has been met with a fine. On the other hand, employers have been granted the authority to impose unpaid leave (without employee consent), partially or in full, on employees during this period. Up until the end of the termination ban, employees on unpaid leave have received a daily allowance from the Unemployment Insurance Fund.

Also, many companies chose to introduce salary reduction due to the economic pressure arising from covid-19 at the beginning of the pandemic by obtaining the written consent of employees.

In addition to the above, certain arrangements have been introduced to facilitate the requirements of short-time working applications, filed on the grounds of circumstances arising from covid-19.

Last updated on 21/09/2021

18. What actions, if any, have unions or other worker associations taken to protect the entitlements and rights of remote workers?

18. What actions, if any, have unions or other worker associations taken to protect the entitlements and rights of remote workers?

Flag / Icon

Switzerland

  • at Lenz & Staehelin

Under pressure from unions, the Council restored protection for vulnerable individuals. These vulnerable employees now have the right to work from home. If employees are not able to carry out their work from home, employers may give them other tasks that can be carried out at home. If no tasks can be performed at home, these employees are released from their obligation to work and the employer must pay them their full salary. This protection is still in place at the time that this article was written.

In addition, the main employers' organisations in French-speaking Switzerland set up a remote-working agreement template in October 2020. This template was considered "insufficient" by the trade unions, because they were not consulted during its development. However, it is often used.

In February 2021, the Federal Personnel Association launched a petition demanding the right to work from home for people employed by the Swiss Federal Administration.

Last updated on 20/01/2022

Flag / Icon

Turkey

  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners

In Turkey, unions have mostly provided opinions or organised demonstrations about the recent Regulation on Remote Working. For instance, the Turkish Journalists Union published a list of recommendations concerning remote working for the attention of the Ministry and its employers. As another example, the Confederation of Turkish Worker Unions issued a comprehensive study named “Remote Working with Regard to Occupational Health and Safety Aspects”.

Notwithstanding the above, in Turkey unionisation mostly exists in blue-collar industries. Therefore, these kinds of associations mostly dealt with short-time working and unpaid-leave mechanisms during the pandemic.

Last updated on 21/09/2021

19. Are employers required to consult with, or otherwise involve, the relevant union when introducing a remote-working arrangement? If so, how much influence does the union and/or works council have to alter the working arrangement (for example, to ensure workers’ health and safety is protected during any period of remote work)?

19. Are employers required to consult with, or otherwise involve, the relevant union when introducing a remote-working arrangement? If so, how much influence does the union and/or works council have to alter the working arrangement (for example, to ensure workers’ health and safety is protected during any period of remote work)?

Flag / Icon

Switzerland

  • at Lenz & Staehelin

In general, there is no obligation to consult with unions if employers want to introduce remote working in the company.

If employers are planning to introduce forced remote working on a long-term basis, the implementation of this change would require a termination-modification (ie, a termination of the contract coupled with a new job offer).

Last updated on 30/09/2021

Flag / Icon

Turkey

  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners
  • at Gün + Partners

The Regulation on Remote Working is silent about employee rights arising from collective labour law. However, collective bargaining agreements can regulate the execution, content, and termination of individual contracts. Therefore, remote working may be regulated as part of the content of an individual contract. As per article 41 of the Act on Unions and Collective Bargaining Agreements, unions to which at least 1% of workers in the relevant field of business are a member can execute a collective bargaining agreement for a certain business or workplace, provided that more than half of the workers employed at the workplace or 40% of the workers employed in the business are members of the union at the application date.

In this regard, the Banking-Finance and Insurance Workers Union announced that they raised this issue in their collective bargaining processes. As remote working has only become widespread during the covid-19 pandemic and the Regulation on Remote Working entered into force only recently, the influence of unions on working arrangements would vary depending on the negotiation process and their relations with employers.

Last updated on 21/09/2021