{"title":"界定工作时间与休息时间:欧洲法院最近关于待机时间的判例法分析","authors":"L. Mitrus","doi":"10.1177/20319525221141622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article explores the evolution of the CJEU jurisprudence following on from the Matzak case. It provides an analysis of the most recent judgments on stand-by time, including those in case C-344/19 Radiotelevizija Slovenija, case C-580/19 Stadt Offenbach am Main, case C-107/19 Dopravní podnik hl. m. Prahy, and case C-214/20 Dublin City Council. The disputes concerned workers on stand-by duty who were not required to be physically present at the location expressly designated by the employer, but were expected to resume work within a short or very short period of time if necessary. In order to classify stand-by periods as working time or rest periods under the Directive 2003/88, the CJEU analyses whether the constraints imposed on the worker are such as to affect, objectively and very significantly, the possibility for the latter freely to manage the time during which his or her professional services are not required and to pursue his or her own interests. Moreover, the CJEU requires that employers cannot establish periods of stand-by time that are so long or so frequent that they constitute a risk to the safety or health of workers, irrespective of those periods being classified as rest periods. In the author's opinion, the required response time is a decisive and most important factor in the assessment. If the reaction period is very short, then in principle the stand-by time constitutes working time. Where the situation is not prima facie clear, additional secondary criteria should be taken into account. The factors that fall within the scope of an employer's managerial competences and pertain to an organisation's operational needs, and also the type of work performed by the worker, are relevant in assessing the legal characterisation of a particular stand-by period. The evaluation should not be affected by factors that remain beyond employer's control, e.g., the location of the workplace, the worker's residence, and distance between them.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Defining working time versus rest time: An analysis of the recent CJEU case law on stand-by time\",\"authors\":\"L. Mitrus\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20319525221141622\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article explores the evolution of the CJEU jurisprudence following on from the Matzak case. It provides an analysis of the most recent judgments on stand-by time, including those in case C-344/19 Radiotelevizija Slovenija, case C-580/19 Stadt Offenbach am Main, case C-107/19 Dopravní podnik hl. m. Prahy, and case C-214/20 Dublin City Council. The disputes concerned workers on stand-by duty who were not required to be physically present at the location expressly designated by the employer, but were expected to resume work within a short or very short period of time if necessary. In order to classify stand-by periods as working time or rest periods under the Directive 2003/88, the CJEU analyses whether the constraints imposed on the worker are such as to affect, objectively and very significantly, the possibility for the latter freely to manage the time during which his or her professional services are not required and to pursue his or her own interests. Moreover, the CJEU requires that employers cannot establish periods of stand-by time that are so long or so frequent that they constitute a risk to the safety or health of workers, irrespective of those periods being classified as rest periods. In the author's opinion, the required response time is a decisive and most important factor in the assessment. If the reaction period is very short, then in principle the stand-by time constitutes working time. Where the situation is not prima facie clear, additional secondary criteria should be taken into account. The factors that fall within the scope of an employer's managerial competences and pertain to an organisation's operational needs, and also the type of work performed by the worker, are relevant in assessing the legal characterisation of a particular stand-by period. The evaluation should not be affected by factors that remain beyond employer's control, e.g., the location of the workplace, the worker's residence, and distance between them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41157,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Labour Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Labour Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221141622\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Labour Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221141622","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文从马扎克案开始,探讨了欧洲法院法理学的演变。它提供了关于待机时间的最新判决的分析,包括案例C-344/19 Radiotelevizija Slovenija,案例C-580/19 Stadt Offenbach am Main,案例C-107/19 Dopravní podnik hl。普拉希先生和C-214/20号案件,都柏林市议会。争议涉及值班工人,他们不需要亲自到雇主明确指定的地点,但如有必要,期望他们在很短的时间内或很短的时间内恢复工作。为了根据第2003/88号指令将待机时间划分为工作时间或休息时间,欧洲法院分析了对工人施加的限制是否客观且非常显著地影响了工人自由管理不需要他或她的专业服务的时间和追求自己兴趣的可能性。此外,欧洲法院要求雇主不得规定对工人的安全或健康构成威胁的长时间或频繁的待命时间,无论这些时间是否被归类为休息时间。在笔者看来,所需的响应时间在评估中是决定性的,也是最重要的因素。如果反应时间很短,那么原则上待机时间构成工作时间。如果情况表面上不清楚,则应考虑到其他次要标准。在雇主的管理能力范围内,与组织的运营需要有关的因素,以及工人所从事的工作类型,在评估特定待命期的法律特征时是相关的。评估不应受到雇主无法控制的因素的影响,例如工作场所的位置、工人的住所以及两者之间的距离。
Defining working time versus rest time: An analysis of the recent CJEU case law on stand-by time
The article explores the evolution of the CJEU jurisprudence following on from the Matzak case. It provides an analysis of the most recent judgments on stand-by time, including those in case C-344/19 Radiotelevizija Slovenija, case C-580/19 Stadt Offenbach am Main, case C-107/19 Dopravní podnik hl. m. Prahy, and case C-214/20 Dublin City Council. The disputes concerned workers on stand-by duty who were not required to be physically present at the location expressly designated by the employer, but were expected to resume work within a short or very short period of time if necessary. In order to classify stand-by periods as working time or rest periods under the Directive 2003/88, the CJEU analyses whether the constraints imposed on the worker are such as to affect, objectively and very significantly, the possibility for the latter freely to manage the time during which his or her professional services are not required and to pursue his or her own interests. Moreover, the CJEU requires that employers cannot establish periods of stand-by time that are so long or so frequent that they constitute a risk to the safety or health of workers, irrespective of those periods being classified as rest periods. In the author's opinion, the required response time is a decisive and most important factor in the assessment. If the reaction period is very short, then in principle the stand-by time constitutes working time. Where the situation is not prima facie clear, additional secondary criteria should be taken into account. The factors that fall within the scope of an employer's managerial competences and pertain to an organisation's operational needs, and also the type of work performed by the worker, are relevant in assessing the legal characterisation of a particular stand-by period. The evaluation should not be affected by factors that remain beyond employer's control, e.g., the location of the workplace, the worker's residence, and distance between them.