Post by account_disabled on Dec 20, 2023 0:53:46 GMT -5
Days is or is not compliant with the directives and provisions mentioned, also taking into account the provisions of article letter (a) of the Directive [ / ]?” Conclusions of the Advocate General Regarding the first, second and third preliminary questions The three questions must be analyzed together and it must be determined if from the articles mentioned above it appears that the weekly rest period to which the worker is entitled must be granted no later than the seventh day following six consecutive working days or if the employer is free to choose, for each seven-day period, the day on which he grants the weekly rest period. On the other hand, it is necessary to state that the first question specifically refers to "the case where workers who work in shifts, who.
Benefit from rest periods by rotation, employed in a unit that is open daily, but country email list which does not have continuous productive periods hours a day", without the referring court assessing whether the appellant performed shift work within the meaning of Article point of Directive / /EC and/or within the meaning of Article point of this directive . From the referral decision, it appears that the appellant had the right to an additional weekly rest day according to collective agreements, in addition to what is provided for in Article of Directive / /EC. In other words, the respective conventions gave the appellant a more extensive protection than that provided for in the respective article. From the jurisprudence of the Court, it follows that the appellant's right to receive compensation in consideration of additional hours worked does not depend on Directive / , but possibly on.
The relevant provisions of national law and the applicable collective agreements. With regarding the fourth preliminary question The General Advocate proposes to the Court to find that this question is inadmissible because Article letter (a) of Directive / regarding the possibility of providing a reference period that does not exceed days is not found in Portuguese domestic law because the Portuguese Republic does not resorted to this possibility. Regarding the interpretation of article of Directive / and article paragraph ( ) of the charter "We consider that the imposition of a weekly rest period during a seven-day period is consistent with the essential objective of Directive / , as found by the Court, namely to effectively protect the safety and.
Benefit from rest periods by rotation, employed in a unit that is open daily, but country email list which does not have continuous productive periods hours a day", without the referring court assessing whether the appellant performed shift work within the meaning of Article point of Directive / /EC and/or within the meaning of Article point of this directive . From the referral decision, it appears that the appellant had the right to an additional weekly rest day according to collective agreements, in addition to what is provided for in Article of Directive / /EC. In other words, the respective conventions gave the appellant a more extensive protection than that provided for in the respective article. From the jurisprudence of the Court, it follows that the appellant's right to receive compensation in consideration of additional hours worked does not depend on Directive / , but possibly on.
The relevant provisions of national law and the applicable collective agreements. With regarding the fourth preliminary question The General Advocate proposes to the Court to find that this question is inadmissible because Article letter (a) of Directive / regarding the possibility of providing a reference period that does not exceed days is not found in Portuguese domestic law because the Portuguese Republic does not resorted to this possibility. Regarding the interpretation of article of Directive / and article paragraph ( ) of the charter "We consider that the imposition of a weekly rest period during a seven-day period is consistent with the essential objective of Directive / , as found by the Court, namely to effectively protect the safety and.