Prague - Forcing employees to work overtime without extra pay may not represent a violation of their dignity and labour rights. According to a recent Supreme Court ruling, people who are forced to work overtime for free are not entitled for high damages, but merely for the pay the employer owes for the overtime hours.
The court rejected an appeal by a former sales assistant from southern Bohemia, who had sued a retail chain for forcing her to work overtime, seeking CZK 500,000 in damages. Labour inspectors also found out that several supermarket employees were forced to work overtime.
Health is not threatened
The sales assistant had turned to court after she at several instances worked for 14 hours or more, but the timesheet she had to sign quoted only a 12 hours shift.
"When she expressed disagreement with the practice and her supervisor merely shrugged and laughed into her face, she concluded that he is not concerned about the staff's health, and felt threatened," the woman's attorney wrote in a legal complaint.
The sales assistant finally quit the job. She says the whole situation negatively affected her health.
Courts in Písek and České Budějovice rejected the woman's complaint and ruled that she has to cover more than CZK 20,000 worth of court fees. The courts nevertheless confirmed that the supermarket had forced the plaintiff and, at an even larger scale, some other employees to work overtime for free.
"Exceeding the maximum work hours is not subject to damage compensation," said the court in České Budějovice in its verdict. The judges also refused that the plaintiff had been discriminated against as a woman, pointing out that male employees had also been forced to work overtime.
The woman appealed to the Supreme Court, stating that she was forced to work overtime due to fear of losing her job. "The employer's practices infringed my personal rights," she said in her complaint.
No damage done to dignity
The senate of the Supreme Court, headed by judge Zdeněk Novotný, said the court had not yet heard a similar dispute, and hence the case is of high importance.
The Supreme Court rejected the woman's appeal. "A violation of labour regulations by the employer does not always result in a diminution of the employee's dignity," the court stated. The judges added that the plaintiff had been deprived of part of her salary and that she may claim the unpaid remuneration.
The Supreme Court also refused that gender discrimination was behind the case, ruling that the supermarket forced both men and women to work overtime. "One of the conditions for entitlement to the claimed damages has thus not been fulfilled," the court concluded.
