New judgements on stand-by schemes and working time
Three years after the significant ‘Matzak’ verdict of the Court of Justice of the European Union (C-518/15), according to which stand-by time which a worker spends at home with the duty to respond to calls from his employer within a short timeframe must under certain conditions be regarded as working time, the Court addressed again the fine line between working time and rest periods under the provisions of Directive 2003/88 and came to new refined conclusions regarding the interpretation of stand-by periods.
On 9 March 2021, the CJEU published two judgments with particular significance for workers involved in stand-by schemes. In the first case (C-344/19, D.J. v Radiotelevizija Slovenija), a technician who was responsible for ensuring the operation of TV transmission in a hard-to-reach territory (mountain) in Slovenia, provided stand-by services for six hours per day, according to a stand-by system. Although he was not obliged by his employer to remain at the transmission center, he could not go to his home during the stand-by time because of the difficulty to return to the center quickly if needed (in 1 hour after the call). For this reason, he had to stay in service accommodation placed at his disposal by his employer.