In the organizational language of companies, terms such as “breaks,” “waiting times,” or “downtime” are often used. In operational practice, these expressions tend to be treated almost as synonyms. From a legal standpoint, however, they are far from equivalent.
A recent order of the Court of Cassation (No. 1835 of January 27, 2026) draws attention to a distinction that can have very concrete effects on the management of employment relationships: that between rest and inactivity.
The difference is not merely terminological. It affects the calculation of working hours, the assessment of any overtime, and, more generally, the soundness of the organizational choices adopted by the company.
For this reason, the issue does not concern only legal professionals, but is also directly relevant to those involved in work organization, shift planning, and human resource management.
The decisive criterion: the employee’s availability
The Court of Cassation reiterates a now well-established principle: not all the time during which an employee is not actually performing work can be classified as a rest break.
- An intermediate rest period occurs when the employee is free to use their time as they wish, even if subject to certain logistical constraints related to the workplace. In such cases, the period is not counted as working time.
- A different situation is that of mere temporary inactivity. Here, although the employee is not carrying out any operational activity, they are still required to remain available to provide their work if needed or to resume their duties. In this case, the time is counted as working time.
The key distinction, therefore, is not the absence of activity itself, but the condition the employee is in: are they truly free to manage their time as they wish, or must they remain available to the organization?
It is a seemingly simple distinction, but one that can become less clear in everyday business practice.
Continue reading the full version published on AIDP – HR Online