Supreme Court ruling on 24-hour shifts: Actual working time to be counted as a maximum of 14 hours

The 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court has made a precedent-setting assessment regarding overtime calculations for the 24-hour shift system, which is particularly common in healthcare institutions. The Chamber ruled that in a 24-hour work arrangement, it must be accepted that an employee can work a maximum of 14 hours in practice.

The case in question arose from a lawsuit filed by an employee who worked as an ambulance driver at a private hospital. Claiming that his overtime pay had not been paid, the employee sought the collection of severance pay, wages and bonuses, annual leave, overtime, and pay for national holidays and general public holidays.

The defendant, on the other hand, argued that a warning had been issued against the employee due to his fault in traffic accidents and that his employment contract had been terminated for just cause due to his unexcused absence from work.

The Labor Court ruled that the private hospital and the ambulance company were jointly and severally liable for the claims. The court partially accepted the case, acknowledging that the employee had terminated his employment contract for just cause on the grounds that there was unpaid overtime pay.

After the case was taken to the appellate court, the Regional Court of Justice assessed that the employee worked on a 24-hour work, 24-hour rest basis. Considering the nature of the work in the healthcare sector and witness statements, it was concluded that there was no specific break time and therefore there was no error in the calculation made. However, it was stated that a recalculation should be made regarding annual leave.

OVERTIME CALCULATION OVERTURNED

The 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, which conducted the appeal review, did not find the assessment regarding the overtime calculation to be in accordance with its established practice. The Chamber stated that the employee worked as an ambulance driver at a private hospital and that, considering the work performed, it would be understood that he could meet his sleep and essential needs.

The ruling stated, "In the event that the working period is 24 hours, it is accepted in accordance with the established practice of our Chamber that the employee can work a maximum of 14 hours in practice."

According to the Supreme Court, in this case, the 3-hour portion exceeding 11 hours on the days the employee worked should be counted as overtime. The Chamber found it erroneous for the local court to issue a ruling based on 20 hours of daily work, assuming the employee had no opportunity to sleep.

The ruling also emphasized that the file contained the employee's payrolls, but these payrolls were not evaluated by the court. It was noted that it was not correct to issue a ruling regarding overtime pay and national holiday and general public holiday pay without examining the payrolls.

The Chamber stated that the days the employee was on annual leave should also be excluded from the overtime calculation. For these reasons, the decision of the Regional Court of Justice was overturned unanimously.

News Source: 12punto