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.
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
Need information? Write to us and our team of experts will respond as soon as possible.
Fill in the form