The Labor Department of the Greek Supreme Court ruled that those who work in front of displays, such as the computer, although entitled to 15 minute break every two hours, but the administration will be made after consultation between employers and employees.
First, the Supreme Civil refer to European directive 90/270/EEC, which states that employers should design so the activity of their employees, so those who are employed on a daily basis in front of display screen or need to interrupt their work periodically break or change occupation (eg employed in other works which do not use monitors).
In cases where workers employed in front of display screens can be rotated to other forms of work (off-screen), then they should be granted a break to 15 minutes every two hours, without, however, can take the time breaks cumulatively.
That is, you can pick up the 15 minute breaks it all together, so that they leave at noon earlier, or gets a job later than planned time.
The question this European directive then ratified by Greece by Presidential Decree 398/1994 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for work with visual displays.
The Supreme Civil interpreting the legislation, noted that the grant in question breaks' implemented after consultations between employers and workers, since Directive 90/270/EEC does not contain provisions that may be open direct, provides only general guidance to Member States has an obligation to comply with and tailor the content. "
In this context, the decision continues, followed by Presidential Decree 398/1994 containing guidelines of the European legislation, leaving some freedom on how to choose compliance (breaks or changes of activity) the time of the break, and provided only the senior year of and not the minimum, etc.
Specifically, in the Supreme Court had appealed ticket dispenser bus Magnesia who worked under an employment contract for an indefinite period and who used a computer since 1990. By courts asked by the controversial Decree 398/1994 and the award 9/1997 which sets out the pay and working conditions of employees in the bus, paid to: 1) compensation for hours of breaks that did not, despite legislative provision, in conjunction with the provisions of unjust enrichment of the employer (bus) and 2) compensation for the harm suffered.
The Supreme Court (decision 85/2013) dismissed the appeal of the employee, as the disputed arbitration award is not mentioned if they accept the obligation of the bus for the granting of the break, which is a prerequisite for