Self-organiser was not a self-organiser

A ministry employed a specialist consultant for 39 hours a week, but the employee often worked more than 48 hours a week on average. The ministry considered the employee a self-organiser. Under the new working time rules, self-organisers can be exempted from the rules on working time and the requirement for time registration.

The employee resigned, and a dispute arose about whether she was a self-organiser.

The arbitrator concluded that she was not a self-organiser and, therefore, subject to the working time rules, including the 48-hour rule. The employee was free to organise her own working hours, take breaks, and work from home when it suited her. However, she still had to attend regular weekly meetings and meet deadlines she had not set.

IUNO’s opinion

The case shows that only employees with significant, unrestricted freedom can be considered self-organisers and exempt from working time rules. Employees who must attend scheduled weekly meetings or have deadlines they do not set themselves do not meet the requirements for self-organisation.

IUNO recommends that companies ensure that self-organisers have genuine freedom to determine their working time on paper and in practice. This could mean, for example, that contracts and policies no longer refer to working time but instead set other work-related requirements and objectives. Companies must also consider whether those employees’ freedom is restricted during the working day and whether those employees are measured only by their performance.

[Industrial arbitration decision of 7 January 2025 in case FV 2023-915].