Supreme Court: Vaccine mandate didn't violate ambulance crews' rights
In a ruling issued Friday, Estonia's Supreme Court said Tallinn's ambulance service could legally fire unvaccinated emergency workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The top court's en banc ruling overturns lower court decisions that had partly sided with 14 former ambulance workers who challenged their dismissal by Tallinn Emergency Medical Service (TEMS) and sought damages.
During the early years of the COVID-19 pandemic, TEMS required frontline staff to follow strict safety rules, including hygiene measures, personal protective equipment (PPE), testing and vaccination, based on workplace risk assessments.
The vaccination requirement was added to their job specifications, and employees were warned noncompliance could lead to dismissal.
The 14 workers in the suit failed to provide proof of vaccination, a medical exemption or prior infection by the employer's deadline.
The Supreme Court said employers may impose stricter health and safety requirements than those prescribed by law when justified by the nature of the work.
It found the vaccination requirement was appropriate given emergency medical services are essential, noting that it helped protect crews, patients and the public while ensuring continuity of care services and keeping society functioning during the pandemic.
Vaccine mandates upheld for other professions
The court has previously upheld vaccine mandates for military personnel, volunteer members of the Estonian Defense League (EDL) and police. It said similar stricter standards can also apply to emergency medical personnel, even in private employment relationships.
Judges stressed that pandemic-related measures must be assessed based on what was known at the time, including the epidemiological situation and available scientific evidence. The court said COVID vaccines used in Estonia were sufficiently proven safe and effective, particularly in preventing severe illness.
At the same time, the court noted that failing to meet a vaccination requirement does not automatically justify dismissal, as workers can cite valid reasons such as medical contraindications. In this case, however, the employees did not present such arguments.
The Supreme Court also said employers cannot place workers on unpaid leave without consent or suspend them for failing to meet the requirement. It concluded that dismissing the employees on the grounds of being unsuitable for the role was lawful.
Four justices issued dissenting opinions.
--
Editor: Huko Aaspõllu, Aili Vahtla
