2011/48 Inactive stand-by periods can be compensated differently from active working hours (BE)

Remuneration for stand-by periods, during which an employee is simply asked to be available by phone in order to answer urgent calls, without the obligation to be at a specific location or to perform his habitual tasks, need not be equivalent to the remuneration for active working hours.

2011/48 Inactive stand-by periods can be compensated differently from active working hours (BE)

Remuneration for stand-by periods, during which an employee is simply asked to be available by phone in order to answer urgent calls, without the obligation to be at a specific location or to perform his habitual tasks, need not be equivalent to the remuneration for active working hours.

2011/59: Employer must consider employee’s personal circumstances (SP)

An employer’s refusal to grant an employee’s request for a change in his working hours in order to achieve a better work-life balance must take into account the decision’s impact on the employee’s family. Failure to do so may amount to discrimination.

2011/59: Employer must consider employee’s personal circumstances (SP)

An employer’s refusal to grant an employee’s request for a change in his working hours in order to achieve a better work-life balance must take into account the decision’s impact on the employee’s family. Failure to do so may amount to discrimination.

ECJ 4 March 2011, case C-258/10 (Nicusor Grigore – v – Regia Nationala a Padurilor Romsilva), Working time

Article 2(1) of the Directive is to be interpreted as meaning that a period during which a forest warden with a contractual eight-hour working day is responsible for supervising a certain area of forest qualifies as “working time” within the meaning of that provision, if the nature and extent of that supervision, combined with his responsibility, require his physical presence at work and if he is at his employer’s disposal during such presence. It is up to the referring court to determine whether this is the case.

The qualification of a period as “working time” does not depend on the availability of lodgings on site if such availability does not imply a requirement to be physically present at the work location. It is up to the referring court to determine whether this is the case.

Article 6 of the Directive precludes, in principle, a situation in which a forest warden, even though his contract stipulates an 8-hour work day and a 40-hour week, is actually forced to work in excess of those limits. It is for the referring court to examine whether this is the case and, if so, whether Romania has exercised its options to derogate from Article 6.

The employer’s obligation to pay salary for periods during which a forest warden is responsible for supervising an area of forest depends solely on domestic law. 

ECJ 4 March 2011, case C-258/10 (Nicusor Grigore – v – Regia Nationala a Padurilor Romsilva), Working time

Article 2(1) of the Directive is to be interpreted as meaning that a period during which a forest warden with a contractual eight-hour working day is responsible for supervising a certain area of forest qualifies as “working time” within the meaning of that provision, if the nature and extent of that supervision, combined with his responsibility, require his physical presence at work and if he is at his employer’s disposal during such presence. It is up to the referring court to determine whether this is the case.

The qualification of a period as “working time” does not depend on the availability of lodgings on site if such availability does not imply a requirement to be physically present at the work location. It is up to the referring court to determine whether this is the case.

Article 6 of the Directive precludes, in principle, a situation in which a forest warden, even though his contract stipulates an 8-hour work day and a 40-hour week, is actually forced to work in excess of those limits. It is for the referring court to examine whether this is the case and, if so, whether Romania has exercised its options to derogate from Article 6.

The employer’s obligation to pay salary for periods during which a forest warden is responsible for supervising an area of forest depends solely on domestic law. 

ECJ 21 October 2010, case C-227/09 (Antonino Accardo and others – v – Comune di Torino), Working time

The fact that a profession is not listed in Article 17(2) of the Directive does not mean that it may not be covered by the derogation provided in Article 17(3). In circumstances such as those in the case of Mr Accardo, the optional derogations provided in Article 17 of the Directive cannot be relied on against Accardo at all. They cannot be interpreted as permitting or precluding the application of collective agreements such as the one in question, since whether such collective agreements apply is a matter for domestic law.

ECJ 21 October 2010, case C-227/09 (Antonino Accardo and others – v – Comune di Torino), Working time

The fact that a profession is not listed in Article 17(2) of the Directive does not mean that it may not be covered by the derogation provided in Article 17(3). In circumstances such as those in the case of Mr Accardo, the optional derogations provided in Article 17 of the Directive cannot be relied on against Accardo at all. They cannot be interpreted as permitting or precluding the application of collective agreements such as the one in question, since whether such collective agreements apply is a matter for domestic law.

ECJ 14 October 2010, case C-243/09 (Günter Fuss – v – Stadt Halle), Working time

Article 6 of Directive 2003/88 precludes national rules, which allow a public-sector employer to transfer a worker compulsorily to another service on the ground that the worker has requested compliance with that provision, even if he or she suffers no specific detriment other than that resulting from the infringement of that provision.

ECJ 14 October 2010, case C-243/09 (Günter Fuss – v – Stadt Halle), Working time

Article 6 of Directive 2003/88 precludes national rules, which allow a public-sector employer to transfer a worker compulsorily to another service on the ground that the worker has requested compliance with that provision, even if he or she suffers no specific detriment other than that resulting from the infringement of that provision.