In a recent case, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided that ‘stand-by’ time spent at home is ‘working time’ under Article 2 of the Working Time Directive (WTD) where a worker is restricted from taking part in non-work interests.
Ville de Nivelles v Matzak
Case Details
Mr Matzak is a retained firefighter for the Ville de Nivelles in Belgium. He is required to be on stand-by time during the evenings and at the weekend for one week in every four. When on stand-by time Mr Matzak must be contactable and, if called upon, report to the fire station within eight minutes. This means that he must live near the fire station and his activities are restricted when he is on stand-by time. Mr Matzak is not paid for stand-by time.
Mr Matzak brought a claim against his employer arguing that he should be paid for time spent on stand-by. The Belgian Labour Court asked the ECJ for a preliminary ruling as to whether time spent on stand-by at home could amount to ‘working time’ under the WTD.
The ECJ decided that stand-by time which a worker spends at home while being required to respond to calls from his employer within eight minutes, which significantly restricts the opportunity for other activities, must be regarded as ‘working time’ under the WTD.
It held that the obligation for Mr Matzak to be physically present at a place determined by his employer (albeit his home) and the “geographical and temporal constraints” resulting from the requirement to report to the fire station within eight minutes, limit his opportunity to pursue personal and social interests.
The ECJ found that Mr Matzak’s situation is distinguishable from that of a worker who, when on stand-by time, must be at their employer’s disposal insofar that they must be contactable.
What does the decision mean?
The ECJ’s decision confirms that where a worker’s freedom to engage in non-work interests during stand-by time spent at home is significantly restricted, then that time will be working time.
The difficulty in applying this decision to other cases might be in deciding what constitutes “significantly restricting” the opportunity for non-work interests. In this case, the requirement for Mr Matzak to report to the fire station within eight minutes, if called upon, was clearly a significant restriction. However, the longer the time a worker has to respond, the less restrictive a requirement may be considered to be.
The decision has potential ramifications for employers who require workers to comply with criteria that significantly restrict their freedom to pursue interests outside work. However, it should not unduly concern employers who merely require workers to be contactable while on stand-by because such workers can manage their own time with fewer constraints and pursue their interests. For them, only time linked to the actual provision of services must be regarded working time.
Employers should review their on-call and stand-by arrangements in light of the ECJ’s decision. If those arrangements significantly restrict workers’ freedom to pursue interests outside work (e.g. by requiring them to be within a short distance or travel time of a place determined by the employer), then the time spent on-call or stand-by is likely to count as working time.
This is important because it may have implications in terms of the employer’s compliance with its obligations under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (such as rest breaks and limits on working time) and the National Minimum Wage.
How Can Nelson Help?
For more employee legal advice or to comment on this article, please contact one of our employment law specialists on 0800 024 1976 or contact us via our online form.