{"id":23117,"date":"2018-10-28T23:00:00","date_gmt":"2018-10-28T22:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.delucapartners.it\/news\/working-hours-and-lunch-breaks-for-part-time-workers\/"},"modified":"2026-02-16T16:10:55","modified_gmt":"2026-02-16T15:10:55","slug":"working-hours-and-lunch-breaks-for-part-time-workers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.delucapartners.it\/en\/insights\/giurisprudenza\/working-hours-and-lunch-breaks-for-part-time-workers\/","title":{"rendered":"Working hours and lunch breaks for part time workers"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

 <\/p>\n

With its judgement no. 21562 filed on 3 September 2018 (decision in camera on 13 March 2018),<\/a> the Court of Cassation examined the issue of breaks at work (in the case in question, the lunch break), with specific attention paid to the case of a part time worker.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Facts<\/strong><\/p>\n

An employee hired under a part time employment contract appealed to the Labour Court to ascertain his right to payment for hours worked over and above the working hours contractually agreed upon (which were 30 hours, as compared to the standard 37.5 hours of work per week), including, inter alia, the 30-minute lunch break which was unilaterally imposed by the employer subsequently to the beginning of the relationship. The Court rejected to worker\u2019s claim. The worker filed an appeal against this first instance ruling. The local Court recognised the worker\u2019s entitlement to receive the additional pay for the overtime work, but did not include the 30-minute lunch break in the calculation of the working hours. In confirming the first instance ruling in regard to the claim for indemnity connected to the late notification of the shift schedules, the Court pointed out that, conversely to what he had claimed in his own defence brief, the worker had not submitted the applicable regulatory and contractual sources indicating that there did in fact exist an obligation to promptly notify the shift schedules. As if that did not suffice, according to the Court of Appeal, the worker had neglected to submit specific facts that would indicate the alleged violation of the principles of fairness and good faith in the performance of the contract, nor had he identified specific monetary and non-monetary effects on his working and personal life that would have enabled the acknowledgement of the damage he was claiming indemnification for. The worker then resorted to the Court of Cassation, which rejected his claims.<\/p>\n

Notion of working hours and breaks<\/strong><\/p>\n

To contextualise the case the Court of Cassation examined, one must start from the notion of working hours and outline the provisions which have been amended and revised over the last few decades. To date, it is Legislative Decree 66\/2003, with its transposition of two EU directives (i.e., 93\/104\/EC and 2000\/34\/EC) that has dictated a regulatory framework applicable to working hours. Based on the legislation, working hours can be defined as \u201cany period in which the worker is at work and available for the employer and performs his or her activities and functions.<\/em>\u201d Therefore, the remuneration obligation does not apply only when the employer can prove that the employee is free to act at will or is not subject to the hierarchic powers at the given time. In relation to said breaks, when such a break is provided during the work activity, if there is no express legislative (i.e., breaks for workers who work in front of video terminals) or contractual provision that considers such a break as part of the working hours, it is the worker\u2019s obligation to prove that the break is in some way connected or related to the work itself, and ordered by someone other than the worker, and is therefore not left to the worker\u2019s free choice.<\/p>\n

The ruling of the Court of Cassation<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the ruling in question, the worker\u2019s appeal to the Court of Cassation essentially consisted of two main claims: (a) the first is related to the need to consider lunch breaks as part of working hours and (b) the second is related to the conduct of the employer, who had imposed a 30-minute lunch break after the beginning of the employment relationship.<\/p>\n