Category: [:fr]Guides & méthodes[:en]Guides & methods[:it]Guide e metodi[:es]Guías y métodos[:]

Of all schedules, on-call rosters are the hardest to hold together. Not because of volume: one on-call line means one person per period. The difficulty is that on-call duty produces effects you cannot see at the moment you plan it. Someone on call is not at work, but neither are they free. If called out, their intervention time becomes actual working time, which shifts their rest, which invalidates the assignment planned for the next day. The schedule was correct when you wrote it; it becomes wrong overnight, and nobody notices before morning. An example makes the mechanism obvious. A practitioner finishes at 6.30 pm and goes on call. They are called at 11 pm and work until 2 am. If eleven consecutive hours of rest must follow that intervention, they are not available before 1 pm the next day, while the schedule had them starting at 8.30 am. Nobody made a mistake: the next day's assignment was decided weeks earlier, the call came at..

"Do we have to install a time clock?" No. But the opposite belief, that you can skip time records altogether, is just as wrong, and far riskier. Between the two sits a precise legal framework, routinely misrepresented by anyone with a badge reader to sell. Here is what the texts actually say. The European obligation On 14 May 2019, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down CCOO v Deutsche Bank SAE (case C-55/18). It held that Member States must require employers to set up an objective, reliable and accessible system measuring the daily working time of each worker. The reasoning explains everything that follows: without reliable measurement, it is "excessively difficult, if not impossible in practice" for workers to enforce their rights to rest and to maximum working hours. The Court expressly rejected the argument that labour inspectorate powers could fill the gap. One point on scope: the ruling..