|
Latest News
How long till I get a break?
03/02/2010 13:31:54
Question:
Peter Montebello from Zejtun recently wrote in The Times referring to newly-graduated doctors and second-year doctors who are employed by the Government at Mater Dei Hospital.
He claims that doctors in training work 30 hours at a stretch without a break and without a rest day on the following day. He states that this is not done out of choice but as part of a roster and adds that working as part of their "training" includes 30-hour shifts.
Mr Montebello asked if I feel that this practice is legal under EU law.
Answer:
The short answer to this question is that this practice of requiring doctors in training to work thirty hours at a stretch is most probably legal under EU law.Let me explain why.
In the Working Time Directive, EU law covers working time, night work, leave, rest periods and even entitlements to breaks. It does so in order to safeguard the health and safety of workers whilst promoting a good work and family life balance.
On daily rest periods the law lays down that every worker is entitled to a minimum daily rest period of eleven consecutive hours per twenty-four hour period.
On weekly rest periods the law lays down that for every seven-day period, every worker is entitled to a minimum uninterrupted rest period of twenty-four hours plus the eleven hours daily rest mentioned before.
This means that in addition to the daily rest period every worker must also be entitled to a twenty-four hour uninterrupted period of rest every week.
The Directive also tackles the issue of break entitlement. It lays down that where the working day is longer than six hours, every worker is entitled to a rest break, the details of which, including duration and the terms on which it is granted, must be laid down in collective agreements or agreements between the two sides of industry or, failing that, by national law.
This means that for every six hours of work, every worker is entitled to a "break", although the law does not stipulate how long the break should be.
Finally, EU law also stipulates that the length of night work should not exceed an average of eight hours in any twenty-four hour period.
Up till this point one can see that the system that the reader is complaining about appears to be incompatible with EU law on working time. And indeed, this is the case with most jobs.
However, in the reader's case there is a caveat since he is talking about a special category of workers, namely trainee doctors.
Indeed, EU law on working time recognises the fact that there are special jobs and professions which have special characteristics and which therefore require different arrangements. For this reason it provides for derogations or exceptions from the conditions outlined above under certain circumstances.
These exceptions apply, amongst others, to trainee doctors.
The law lays down that a derogation is possible in the case of activities involving the need for continuity of service or production, particularly services relating to the reception, treatment and/or care provided by hospitals or similar establishments. In this regard, it specifically mentions doctors in training.
It adds that such derogations may be adopted by means of laws, regulations or administrative provisions or by means of collective agreements or agreements between the two sides of industry.
This means that the conditions mentioned before cannot be applied lock, stock and barrel in the case of the doctors in training. However this does not mean that the law expects them to work 24/7 without any rest.
The derogations are granted provided that the workers concerned are afforded equivalent periods of compensatory rest. In exceptional cases in which it is not possible, for objective reasons, to grant such equivalent periods of compensatory rest, the workers concerned must be afforded "appropriate protection". However, the law is a bit ambiguous here because it does not clearly define what "appropriate protection" means.
I suppose that it would be up to the courts to determine whether, in cases where no compensatory periods of rest are granted, an "appropriate protection" is nevertheless afforded to the workers concerned.
In conclusion, therefore, in Mr Montebello's case, if he is being required to work longer hours than that stipulated by EU law, he would be entitled to the equivalent of the eleven hour daily rest period and the twenty-four hour weekly period.
If, in exceptional circumstances, this is not possible for objective reasons, then he should be afforded appropriate protection.
If Mr Montebello considers that practices in Malta go beyond the exceptions described here, he may wish to contact me to provide me with further details so that I may take the case further.
Published: The Times: Wednesday,3 February 2010
Share
Your Comments
HADRIAN CASSAR TORREGGIANI WRITES: I made acquaintance with a 70 year-old female having an Irish passport but having lived in Malta for some 20 odd years and up to the 1990 living on a boat. I am not quite when she started paying local incom tax possible since mid 1990's. Lately, she needed hospitalization and She was told that she is not entiled to free hospitalization at Mater Dei. Having EU citizenship is she not entilted to fee medical treatment in Malta at government's hospital? She had to pay in full.
Comment
Other Articles
Latest News
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Maltese Art in the European Parliament
Affection Frederick Gingell | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
