EXTENDED SUMMARY

In its decision numbered 2021/211 E. and 2022/1228 K., the Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers held that the mere fact of an employee performing overtime work exceeding 270 hours annually does not, in itself, constitute a just cause for termination of the employment contract by the employee.

Article 63 of the Labor Act prescribes that the maximum regular working time shall not exceed forty-five hours per week. The rationale underlying this provision is inherently protective, reflecting the employee-oriented function of labor law, which seeks to secure rest periods and safeguard employees’ well-being. The legislative limitation of daily and weekly working hours constitute one of the essential working conditions an indispensable element of this protective framework. Where these statutory thresholds are exceeded, the legal notion of “overtime work” becomes applicable.

According to Article 41(1) of the Labor Act, overtime is defined as “work performed in excess of forty-five hours per week, under the conditions provided by law.” Thus, for a work activity to qualify as overtime, it must first surpass the statutory threshold of forty-five hours weekly. Likewise, work exceeding eleven hours per day or seven and a half hours during night shifts also falls within the scope of overtime.

The Act and the relevant Regulation further impose an annual restriction on overtime: “the total duration of overtime shall not exceed two hundred seventy hours per year.” The Court of Cassation, however, has reasoned that this stipulation does not possess an absolutely mandatory character.

Such reasoning invites a purposive interpretation rather than a strictly literal one. Given the inherent inequality between employer and employee, the latter being in an economically and socially subordinate position, labor law provisions must be construed with a protective lens. Working time and rest periods exemplify the domains in which this protective function is most evident.

From a doctrinal perspective, requiring an employee to remain indefinitely at the disposal of the employer would contravene the very foundations of modern labor law. As a human being, the employee requires free time to preserve and develop his or her material and moral existence. Moreover, limiting working hours serves not only the employee’s interests but also the efficiency and sustainability of the labor relationship itself.

The true point of contention lies not in whether the 270-hour cap is mandatory per se, but rather in whether it should be considered absolutely mandatory or relatively mandatory. The more persuasive view is that this provision is of a relatively mandatory character. Consequently, even where the employee has ostensibly consented to working beyond this annual threshold, such consent must be deemed legally ineffective. As has been convincingly argued in the literature, “the right to rest is a constitutional right, and overtime performed in violation of statutory limits constitutes an infringement of this right.”

Finally, it is necessary to examine the implications for the employee’s right to terminate the employment contract with just cause. Pursuant to the Labor Act, where the working conditions stipulated by law or contract are not observed, the employee is entitled to terminate the contract on grounds of just cause. The failure to implement agreed working conditions may occur either through non-application or through their adverse alteration. The statutory annual cap of 270 hours of overtime is undoubtedly part of such working conditions. Accordingly, an employer’s breach of this limit provides the employee with just cause for termination.