You are here:

Romania / Iasi Court of Appeal / 267/2020

M.F. v. Iasi Clinical Recovery Hospital

Deciding Body type:
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding Body:
Iasi Court of Appeal
Type:
Decision
Decision date:
14/07/2020
Key facts of the case:
The case relates to a dispute between a doctor and the hospital he works at. The doctor works part time at the hospital and has a full-time working contract with the Medical University, a function which he also carries out in the hospital. The hospital refuses to allow the doctor annual paid leave, interpreting national legislation as saying that a person is entitled to receive paid leave only from the place of full-time employment. The law that is being applied is Government Decision no. 250/1992, which states that employees who perform another function by accumulation, in addition to the basic function, are entitled to paid leave only from the place where they have the basic functions.
 
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The court analyses the question of whether a person is entitled to paid leave from all places of employment, in the event that the person has more than one job.
 
Outcome of the case:
The appeal court overturned the decision of the first instance court and found that Government Decision no. 250/1992 is contrary to EU legislation, namely to Directive 2003/88/EC and the Framework Agreement on part-time work. The court found that the express prohibition prescribed in Art. 3 paragraph 3 of G.D. no. 250/1992 is contrary to Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work and the principle of equality, in general, as employees with multiple working contracts are not in a comparable situation to a worker with a single contract. A person with multiple working contracts needs to allocate additional effort to perform their tasks and also needs more time to recover from the additional effort. The Court found that the right to paid leave is an unconditional and imperative right, and as regards employment conditions, part-time workers should not be treated less favourably than full-time workers, unless there are objective reasons to do so. In this present case there were no objective reasons for different treatment and the Court obliged the hospital to compensate M.F. for the days of paid leave denied.