Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
11 09 55 • KG LU 11 09 55 AI generated

Driver Compensation for Excess Overtime Distinction (OR/ArG)

Case Number 11 09 55
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Switzerland · Canton of Lucerne (CH-LU)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Entscheidsuche mirror Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court addressed a dispute over compensation for additional work performed by a driver after the employment relationship ended, clarifying the legal distinction between overtime ("Überstunden") and excess overtime ("Überzeit") under the Code of Obligations (OR) and the Working Hours Act (ArG). The court reasoned that for drivers, the statutory weekly maximum working time is 46 hours, as defined by specific regulation for professional drivers; work performed beyond this limit constitutes "Überzeit," which, under mandatory law, must be compensated with base pay plus a surcharge or compensated with equivalent time off, regardless of any contractual agreement seeking to waive this compensation, which was only validly waived for hours worked up to the 46-hour limit ("Überstunden").

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 321c OR, Art. 13 ArG, Art. 321c Abs. 3 OR, Art. 13 Abs. 2 ArG, Art. 13 Abs. 1 ArG, Art. 9 ArG; Driver Compensation for Excess Overtime Distinction (OR/ArG): The court reasoned that for drivers, the statutory weekly maximum working time is 46 hours, as defined by specific regulation for professional drivers; work performed beyond this limit constitutes "Überzeit," which, under mandatory law, must be compensated with base pay plus a surcharge or compensated with equivalent time off, regardless of any contractual agreement seeking to waive this compensation, which was only validly waived for hours worked up to the 46-hour limit ("Überstunden").

Keywords

AI generated
compensation for overtime legal working time contractual obligations employment relationship statutory limits continuation of wage payment

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 321c OR
Cited in the substantive reasoning regarding the remuneration of overtime (Überstunden).
Art. 13 ArG
Cited as the mandatory provision governing the compensation for work performed beyond the maximum weekly working hours (Überzeit).
Art. 321c Abs. 3 OR
17 Leitsatz: · Art. 321c OR; Art.
Art. 13 Abs. 2 ArG
Instanz: · Obergericht Abteilung: · I. Kammer Rechtsgebiet: · OR (Obligationenrecht) Entscheiddatum: · 16.03.2010 Fallnummer: · 11 09 55 LGVE: · 2010 I Nr. 17 Leitsatz: · Art. 321c OR; Art. 13 ArG. Unterscheidung zwischen Überstundenund Überzeitarbeit. Rechtskraft: · Diese Entscheidung ist rechtskräftig.
Art. 13 Abs. 1 ArG
Instanz: · Obergericht Abteilung: · I. Kammer Rechtsgebiet: · OR (Obligationenrecht) Entscheiddatum: · 16.03.2010 Fallnummer: · 11 09 55 LGVE: · 2010 I Nr. 17 Leitsatz: · Art. 321c OR; Art. 13 ArG. Unterscheidung zwischen Überstundenund Überzeitarbeit. Rechtskraft: · Diese Entscheidung ist rechtskräftig.
Art. 9 ArG
Art. 56 SVG
Art. 6 Abs. 1 dieser

Cited Case Law

AI generated
4C.142/2005
Executive Secretary's Claim for Unproven Overtime Denied.
BGE 126 III 337
Employee Overtime Compensation and Mandatory Labor Law Protections
AI generated
S 92 422
Appeal Timeliness and Employee Status of Auxiliary Taxi Driver
11 98 99
Employee v. Employer: Unpaid Overtime Compensation and Evidentiary Predicament
1B 11 63
Overtime Compensation During Immediate Termination Release
11 05 37
Wage Claim Confirmation Despite Employer Overpayment Offset Denial and Contributory Fault Irrelevance

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
Art. 321c OR

Cited in the substantive reasoning regarding the remuneration of overtime (Überstunden).

Art. 13 ArG

Cited as the mandatory provision governing the compensation for work performed beyond the maximum weekly working hours (Überzeit).

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Rechtsprechung Luzern

Instanz: · Obergericht Abteilung: · I. Kammer Rechtsgebiet: · OR (Obligationenrecht) Entscheiddatum: · 16.03.2010 Fallnummer: · 11 09 55 LGVE: · 2010 I Nr. 17 Leitsatz: · Art. 321c OR; Art. 13 ArG. Unterscheidung zwischen Überstundenund Überzeitarbeit. Rechtskraft: · Diese Entscheidung ist rechtskräftig.