Unlike blood donation, the donation of blood plasma is often associated with financial compensation, the amount of which has been gradually increasing. This trend raises employees’ interest in plasma donation. But at the same time it may have a more significant impact on employers’ operations. If a plasma donation takes place during working hours, the question arises how such a situation should be approached from a labour law perspective. Specifically, whether, and under what conditions, the employee is entitled to time off work and wage compensation for such absence.
The Labour Code regulates blood donation and the collection of its components, including plasmapheresis, as an obstacle to work. If the donation interferes with working hours, the employer must grant the employee time off on the grounds of a public interest obstacle, under the conditions set forth by law. This is accompanied by the employee’s entitlement to wage or salary compensation. The legal regulation applies not only to the donation itself. It also covers the time reasonably necessary for travel, the procedure, and, where applicable, recovery time.
However, interpretative ambiguities arise in professional discourse in connection with plasma donation. Especially in cases where the collection facility provides financial compensation. The key issue is whether such a donation meets the conditions for granting time off and wage compensation.
To invoke an obstacle to work on the employee’s side, the general conditions under the Labour Code must be met. The employee must notify the employer in a timely manner or to request time off in advance if foreseeable.
A fundamental principle is that employees should arrange activities giving rise to obstacles to work outside working hours whenever possible. This applies unless objective circumstances prevent such scheduling. Only where this is not feasible may the donation take place during working hours. In such cases, it may qualify as an obstacle to work. This issue is particularly relevant for employees working in shifts or with irregular working time arrangements. Such employees can more often schedule donations outside their working hours.
Therefore, employers should assess each case individually, taking into account the specific work schedule and circumstances.
The Labour Code classifies blood donation and the collection of its components as obstacles to work performed in the public interest. This classification traditionally rests on the assumption that blood donation serves a generally beneficial purpose. Typically without remuneration for the donor, while compensation for directly incurred and demonstrable expenses is considered compatible with the principle of gratuitousness. This understanding is also reflected, for example, in statements of the Ministry of Health concerning compensation provided by plasma donation centres.
In the case of blood plasma donation, however, this assumption is challenged by the practice of collection facilities. These facilities often provide donors with financial remuneration that may go beyond mere reimbursement of costs.
The existence of such financial consideration raises the question whether the activity can still be regarded as being performed in the public interest. Or whether it should instead be classified as an activity primarily pursuing the employee’s private interest. In the absence of explicit statutory regulation and case law, employers have adopted divergent approaches when assessing entitlement to time off and wage compensation.
These issues have also been addressed by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. The Ministry takes a broad view of blood and plasma donation as a public interest obstacle, regardless of whether payment is provided for the donation.
By contrast, a different view is advocated by part of the professional community. For instance, an article by JUDr. Alice Mlýnková, Blood and Plasma Donation as an Obstacle to Work from the Perspective of the Labour Code, published in the journal Práce a mzda and referenced by the Czech Red Cross. This article emphasises the importance of gratuitousness and points out the potential weakening of the link to the public interest where donations are financially rewarded. According to this view, it may be reasonably concluded that such cases do not constitute a public interest obstacle on the employee’s side.
A particularly problematic scenario arises where an employee donates plasma regularly and receives financial compensation for each donation. Unlike standard blood donations, plasma may be donated every 14 days. In current practice, the compensation may reach up to approximately CZK 1,000 per donation. If such donations occur during working hours and meet formal criteria, the employee could repeatedly take time off with wage compensation. At the same time, the employee may derive a non-negligible private economic benefit.
This issue is further highlighted by the marketing of some plasmapheresis centres. These centres explicitly emphasise financial incentives and present plasma donation as a source of regular supplementary income.
Given that both legislation and legal interpretation allow for differing approaches to, employers should adopt a predictable transparent framework. Suitable tools include internal policies setting out the basic conditions for granting time off and entitlement to wage compensation. Particularly the employee’s obligation to notify the employer in due time, to provide evidence of the obstacle. And, first and foremost, plan donations in a way that minimizes disruption to work hours as much as possible. Such measures enhance legal certainty for both parties and reduce the risk of disputes.
At the same time, employers must assess individual cases on their merits, taking into account specific circumstances. In particular working time arrangements, the frequency of donations, and their actual impact on workplace operations. A mechanical approach, whether by automatically granting or categorically refusing time off, is inappropriate. It may lead either to unjustified interference with employees’ rights or to an excessive burden on the employer.
The interpretative uncertainties and practical implications outlined above demonstrate the need for the legislature to explicitly regulate blood plasma donation in labour law. In particular, it should clarify under what conditions plasma donation may be regarded as a public interest obstacle. Clearer rules would strengthen legal certainty for both employees and employers and reduce inconsistent interpretations and disputes.
