The Czech Supreme Court has addressed the issue of the extent to which types of work can be considered distinct if one merely complements the other. In the same judgement, it also interpreted the conditions for assessing compliance with the Labour Code in the case of two employment relationships with the same employer.

(File number: 21 Cdo 1929/2021-288)

In this case, the employee worked as a medical specialist in the urology department of a hospital. In addition to his regular employment contract, in which the type of work agreed was “medical specialist not providing emergency inpatient care,” the physician had also concluded a so-called agreement to perform work* with the same employer. Under this agreement, he undertook to carry out “emergency inpatient care duties.”

The employee brought forth a claim seeking overtime pay, arguing that the agreement to perform work was void since he was essentially fulfilling the same tasks as a medical specialist in the urology department under both the agreement and the employment contract. Consequently, he claimed that the work performed under the agreement to perform work should be classified as overtime work.

In a judgement favouring the employee, the Supreme Court emphasized that, as per the provisions of the Labour Code, an individual can engage in work for the same employer under an additional employment relationship only if the nature of the work significantly differs. In this case, the inpatient emergency care work was found...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiU2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmxleG9sb2d5LmNvbS9s...