should ensure greater respect for workers' leisure time. And 'what the Supreme Court (Case 12962/2008) recalling that even workers who do not have a contract of employment' part-time 'are entitled to be told in advance of shift changes. If you do not satisfy that natural need it ends up undermining the dignity 'of workers protected by art. 32 of the Constitution. It 'been so upheld an appeal by a group of bus drivers of a private company who were "able to know in advance the rostering on only ten days per month, while the remaining 16 days were aware of the shift assigned only on the day preceding the performance of work. "The Court" for the reports to full-time, leisure has a particular importance given the social importance that takes the course, even for the full-time worker, activities of 'sporting, recreational, cultural, social, political, educational ...". The damage alleged by the workers was substantial that it could not organize their free time. At first instance, the Court had given him reason to workers, while the Court of Appeals overturned the decision, arguing that the case of labor relations "full time" no rule of law or contract provided that employees should know in advance the schedule of shifts. Different view of the Court of Cassation upheld the action of the workers, said that "even a statement of the shift occurred only the day before 'can rledere dignity' of the worker. And that even if the contract provides for "full time" since "the need for programmability 'of free time which was identified specifically by the legislature in the ratio of part-time job, there are, albeit less pressing, at' Internal report of full-time job. " It is now up to the Court of Appeal in return for fair compensation to the employees' actual daily shift in availability '"stolen from" spare time "or even" where there is no provision of an exclusivity clause, a second job. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment