Standby time spent by an employee at home may be regarded as “working time”, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has recently ruled. This is the case when such an employee is obliged to respond to calls from the employer within a short period of time should the need arise.
The EU’s working time directive defines “working time” as any period during which the employee is working, at the employer's disposal and carrying out his activity or duties. In terms of this directive, member states must ensure that the employees’ rights to a specified minimum daily rest period, a break in any working day longer than six hours, an uninterrupted 24-hour rest period every seven days and at least four weeks paid annual leave are safeguarded. Furthermore, EU law makes provision for a maximum average working week of 48 hours, including overtime, over seven days.
The facts of this case were briefly as follows. Rudy Matzak, a volunteer firefighter, brought judicial proceedings against a Belgian town where he provided his services in order to obtain compensation for standby services rendered.
He was obliged not only to be contactable during his standby time but also to respond to calls from his employer within eight minutes and to be physically present at the place determined by the employer. Matzak claimed that, in his case, standby time ought to be categorised as working time.
The national appellate court seized of the case decided to refer the matter to the CJEU requesting guidance as to whether an employee’s standby services at home ought to be considered as falling within the definition of working time in terms of EU law.
The CJEU maintained that the working time directive does not permit member states to maintain or adopt a definition of the concept of working time different from that laid down in the directive. This, in order to ensure harmonisation across all EU Member States.
It went on to observe that the directive does not, however, deal with the question of workers’ remuneration, as that aspect falls outside the scope of the EU’s competence. Thus, member states may lay down in their national law that, the remuneration of a worker during “working time”, differs from that of a worker in a “rest period”, even to the point of not granting any remuneration during the latter period.
Insofar as the classification of what ought to be considered as working time is concerned, the court noted that the determining factor is the requirement that the worker be physically present at the place determined by the employer and be available to the employer in order to be able to provide the relevant services immediately in case of need. The court went on to distinguish Matzak’s situation from that of an employee who, during his/her standby duty, must simply be at his employer’s disposal in the sense that it must be possible for the employer to contact him/her.
Taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the case under examination, the CJEU ruled that standby time, which a worker is obliged to spend at home with the duty to respond to calls from his employer within a very short period and report for work, must be considered as working time. This is so since, in such cases, the employee’s opportunity to carry out other personal or social activities is very much restricted.
The EU’s labour law acquis makes provision for rules intended to protect the health and safety and the economic rights of workers. The interpretation given by the CJEU to such laws ensures that all such rights are safeguarded at all times and not circumvented by employers to their personal advantage.
Mariosa Vella Cardona is a freelance legal consultant specialising in European law, competition law, consumer law and intellectual property law.
mariosa@vellacardona.com