Top of page ↑
Log out
Reset filters
    • Verdicts from/at until
136 search results

Case report

2014-07-09

Czech Republic

2014/51 Potential breakthrough for employee requests for reduced working hours (CZ)

An employer may decline an employee’s request for reduced working hours or a different distribution of working hours if the employer has serious operational reasons for doing so, even if the employee applies for the reduction in order to take care of a child under 15 or a disabled person or because she is pregnant. The impact on the business activities of the employer at the time of the employee’s request is the crucial consideration in assessing how serious the operational reasons are. If a solution can be found, such as employing someone to cover the employee for the required time, the employer must not decline the employee’s request.

Nejvyšší soud (Czech Supreme Court), 2014-07-09

Summary

2014-07-09

2014/51 Potential breakthrough for employee requests for reduced working hours (CZ)

An employer may decline an employee’s request for reduced working hours or a different distribution of working hours if the employer has serious operational reasons for doing so, even if the employee applies for the reduction in order to take care of a child under 15 or a disabled person or because she is pregnant. The impact on the business activities of the employer at the time of the employee’s request is the crucial consideration in assessing how serious the operational reasons are. If a solution can be found, such as employing someone to cover the employee for the required time, the employer must not decline the employee’s request.

Nejvyšší soud (Czech Supreme Court), 2014-07-09

Case report

2013-02-26

Czech Republic

2013/29 Obligation to wear uniform during breaks does not disqualify those breaks as unpaid “rest breaks” (CZ)

This case turns on the distinction (existing also under EU law) between a regular break and a period, not being a regular break (“a reasonable period of time for food and rest”), during which the employee does not work. The distinction was relevant in this case concerning police officers, because, in accordance with Czech law, employees are not entitled to pay during regular breaks but are entitled to pay during “reasonable periods for food and rest”, and the police officers considered their breaks to be such reasonable periods. Was the fact that they continued to wear their uniforms and weapons during breaks relevant? The Supreme Court replied in the negative.

Nejvyšší soud (Czech Supreme Court), 2013-02-26

Summary

2013-02-26

2013/29 Obligation to wear uniform during breaks does not disqualify those breaks as unpaid “rest breaks” (CZ)

This case turns on the distinction (existing also under EU law) between a regular break and a period, not being a regular break (“a reasonable period of time for food and rest”), during which the employee does not work. The distinction was relevant in this case concerning police officers, because, in accordance with Czech law, employees are not entitled to pay during regular breaks but are entitled to pay during “reasonable periods for food and rest”, and the police officers considered their breaks to be such reasonable periods. Was the fact that they continued to wear their uniforms and weapons during breaks relevant? The Supreme Court replied in the negative.

Nejvyšší soud (Czech Supreme Court), 2013-02-26

Case report

2013-02-20

France

2013/31 Supreme Court rules on duration, continuity and burden of proof in respect of daily rest breaks (FR)

Every employee who has worked at least six hours on one day (even discontinuously) is entitled to take a continuous break of 20 minutes, which cannot be replaced by two separate shorter paid breaks. The employer is responsible for bringing forward the evidence that he has provided this rest break.

Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court), 2013-02-20

Summary

2013-02-20

2013/31 Supreme Court rules on duration, continuity and burden of proof in respect of daily rest breaks (FR)

Every employee who has worked at least six hours on one day (even discontinuously) is entitled to take a continuous break of 20 minutes, which cannot be replaced by two separate shorter paid breaks. The employer is responsible for bringing forward the evidence that he has provided this rest break.

Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court), 2013-02-20

Case report

2012-07-25

United Kingdom

2012/56 Annual leave untaken due to illness carried over automatically (UK)

A worker, who had not taken statutory annual leave because of long- term sickness absence, was entitled to carry the untaken leave forward to the next holiday year without making a prior request to do so. She could therefore claim payment in lieu for any unused statutory holiday on the termination of her employment.

Court of Appeal, 2012-07-25

Summary

2012-07-25

2012/56 Annual leave untaken due to illness carried over automatically (UK)

A worker, who had not taken statutory annual leave because of long- term sickness absence, was entitled to carry the untaken leave forward to the next holiday year without making a prior request to do so. She could therefore claim payment in lieu for any unused statutory holiday on the termination of her employment.

Court of Appeal, 2012-07-25

Case report

2011-12-07

United Kingdom

2012/12: Offshore workers can be required to take annual leave during onshore field breaks (UK)

Offshore workers in the oil and gas industry brought an action claiming that, in not being allowed to take annual leave during periods when they were rostered for offshore work, they were being denied their entitlement to annual leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (the “WTR”). The WTR implement the Working Time Directive 93/104/EC (now consolidated as Directive 2003/88/EC, the “WTD”). The Supreme Court rejected the employees’ argument and held that onshore field breaks could be used for statutory holiday entitlement. It also refused a request for a reference to the ECJ for a decision on the meaning of “annual leave” under the WTD.

UK Supreme Court, 2011-12-07

Summary

2011-12-07

2012/12: Offshore workers can be required to take annual leave during onshore field breaks (UK)

Offshore workers in the oil and gas industry brought an action claiming that, in not being allowed to take annual leave during periods when they were rostered for offshore work, they were being denied their entitlement to annual leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (the “WTR”). The WTR implement the Working Time Directive 93/104/EC (now consolidated as Directive 2003/88/EC, the “WTD”). The Supreme Court rejected the employees’ argument and held that onshore field breaks could be used for statutory holiday entitlement. It also refused a request for a reference to the ECJ for a decision on the meaning of “annual leave” under the WTD.

UK Supreme Court, 2011-12-07