19.03.2014 08:45 Uhr in Wirtschaft & Finanzen und in Wirtschaft & Finanzen von GRP Rainer LLP Lawyers Tax Advisors
Remuneration for overtime only where employer is aware - Labour law
Remuneration for overtime only where employer is aware - Labour lawKurzfassung: It is only if the employer is aware of extra work that there may potentially be a claim on the part of the employee for payment of overtime.
[GRP Rainer LLP Lawyers Tax Advisors - 19.03.2014] GRP Rainer Lawyers and Tax Advisors in Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich, Stuttgart and London - www.grprainer.com/en conclude: An employee initially sued for payment of overtime before the Kaiserslautern Labour Court and then before the Mainz Regional Labour Court (LAG) (Az.: 5 Sa 257/13), however both Courts dismissed the claim. The plaintiff, an employed lawyer, argued that he had to work longer than contractually agreed on the cases assigned to him. The employer countered, on the one hand, that it was not aware of the extra work and, on the other hand, that the extra work had not been recognizable.
The LAG noted in its statement of grounds that a claim for remuneration of the extra work could exist if remuneration was expected in the event of extra work, e.g. because the amount of wages did not indicate a lump-sum compensation of overtime and the extra work went beyond the regular working hours. In the present case, this was satisfied due to the comparatively low gross wages, yet the plaintiff's demands were nonetheless unsuccessful.
This is because, in the Court's view, the claim for payment of overtime had to be set out on the basis of differentiated information. This includes, for example, the details of the exact days and time of day at which overtime was performed and also the tasks carried out. Moreover, the employee would also have to state whether the overtime was prescribed or approved by the employer. A reference to the appropriateness of the overtime alone would not be sufficient.
In the instant case, the plaintiff did not satisfy these requirements. Not once during his ten-year employment did he make the defendant aware that it was necessary for him to do overtime to finish his work. The employer could therefore have assumed that the plaintiff was finishing his work within the contractually agreed timeframe. For this reason, there is no claim for remuneration of overtime.
Employee and employer should already be in agreement in the employment contract on all relevant points. With the help of a lawyer versed in the field of labour law, both parties can ensure that their interests are sufficiently accounted for in the contract. In addition, a lawyer can assist in enforcing any claims of the parties in the event of a legal dispute.
http://grprainer.com/arbeitsrecht.html
The LAG noted in its statement of grounds that a claim for remuneration of the extra work could exist if remuneration was expected in the event of extra work, e.g. because the amount of wages did not indicate a lump-sum compensation of overtime and the extra work went beyond the regular working hours. In the present case, this was satisfied due to the comparatively low gross wages, yet the plaintiff's demands were nonetheless unsuccessful.
This is because, in the Court's view, the claim for payment of overtime had to be set out on the basis of differentiated information. This includes, for example, the details of the exact days and time of day at which overtime was performed and also the tasks carried out. Moreover, the employee would also have to state whether the overtime was prescribed or approved by the employer. A reference to the appropriateness of the overtime alone would not be sufficient.
In the instant case, the plaintiff did not satisfy these requirements. Not once during his ten-year employment did he make the defendant aware that it was necessary for him to do overtime to finish his work. The employer could therefore have assumed that the plaintiff was finishing his work within the contractually agreed timeframe. For this reason, there is no claim for remuneration of overtime.
Employee and employer should already be in agreement in the employment contract on all relevant points. With the help of a lawyer versed in the field of labour law, both parties can ensure that their interests are sufficiently accounted for in the contract. In addition, a lawyer can assist in enforcing any claims of the parties in the event of a legal dispute.
http://grprainer.com/arbeitsrecht.html
Weitere Informationen
GRP Rainer LLP Lawyers Tax Advisors, Herr Michael Rainer
Hohenzollernring 21-23, 50672 Cologne, Germany
Tel.: 0049 221-2722750; http://www.grprainer.com/en
Hohenzollernring 21-23, 50672 Cologne, Germany
Tel.: 0049 221-2722750; http://www.grprainer.com/en
Weitere Meldungen dieses Unternehmens
26.08.2014 Ship funds: World trade losing momentum
Pressefach abonnieren
via RSS-Feed abonnieren
via E-Mail abonnieren
Pressekontakt
Herr Michael Rainer
GRP Rainer LLP Lawyers Tax Advisors
Hohenzollernring 21-23
50672 Cologne
Germany
Drucken
Weiterempfehlen
PDF
Schlagworte
Permanentlinks
https://www.prmaximus.de/100545GRP Rainer LLP Lawyers Tax Advisors
Hohenzollernring 21-23
50672 Cologne
Germany
https://www.prmaximus.de/pressefach/grp-rainer-llp-lawyers-tax-advisors-pressefach.html
Die Pressemeldung "Remuneration for overtime only where employer is aware - Labour law" unterliegt dem Urheberrecht.
Jegliche Verwendung dieses Textes, auch auszugsweise, erfordert die vorherige schriftliche Erlaubnis des Autors.
Autor der Pressemeldung "Remuneration for overtime only where employer is aware - Labour law" ist GRP Rainer LLP Lawyers Tax Advisors, vertreten durch Michael Rainer.