More News

Article 68 of the Law provides for 9 working hours per day. It, however, remains uncertain whether or not the law intended for the 9 working hours, to include break and lunch time referenced in Article 69 of the Law or not.

On a first reading of Article 69 of the Law, it may appear prima facie that the break and lunch time are included within the 9 working hours prescribed by Article 68. Article 1 of the Law containing the definitions of the key terms used in the Law, it is to be noted that break and lunch time are not included within the 9 working hours timeframe prescribed in Article 68. Article 1/19 of the Law defines “Working hours” to be: the time during which the worker is at the employer’s disposal and does not include the periods of rest.

The Supreme Court dismissed a labour claim raised by a group of workers (Claimants) against their employer (Defendant) where in the Claimants argued that the Defendant breached Article 68 of the Law by providing in their employment contracts for 10 working hours. The Claimants requested that their employment contracts be amended and that they be compensated for the one-hour overtime (the 10^th hour). The Primary Court ruled, and the Appellate Court confirmed the former’s ruling, that the Claimants’ contracts be amended and reduced to 9 hours, deemed the 10^th hour to be overtime, and thus the workers (Claimants) be compensated for the same.

The Defendant appealed the above judgment before the Supreme Court where the Defendant explained that the 10 hours referenced in the employment contracts include 9 working hours and 1 hour break, inclusive of and lunch. The Defendant further argued that providing for 10 working hours in the employment contract does not necessarily mean that the workers were working for 10 hours. The Defendant reiterated that the total working hours were 9 hours per day, with an additional one hour (the 10^th hour referenced in the employment contracts) having been provided for rest and lunch time.

In light of the parties’ submissions, the Supreme Court reversed the appealed judgment and dismissed the claim. The Supreme Court reasoned that it was evident that the actual working hours were 9 hours per day and that the additional 10^th hour referenced in the employment contract was allocated for rest and lunch time. In its judgment, the Supreme Court relied on Article 1/19 of the Labour Law, which provides that rest and lunch time are not included in the legally prescribed 9 working hours per day.