Austrian OGH Decisions Regarding Compensation for Bus Drivers' Break Periods

Oct 24, 2025 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, hereinafter OGH) has ruled that breaks bus drivers are required to take because of timetables do not count as paid working time under Section 2(1)(1) of the Austrian Working Time Act (Arbeitszeitgesetz, AZG).

Do scheduled breaks count as working time?

In the case at hand, the plaintiff’s scheduled breaks amounted to 5 hours and 18 minutes during each workday. The defendant compensated her for 3 hours and 48 minutes of this time, maintaining that the remaining duration constituted unpaid breaks as stipulated by the applicable collective agreement. The plaintiff pursued remuneration for the outstanding one and a half hours, contending that she was unable to use these breaks at her discretion due to their scheduled nature.

The court of appeal affirmed the lower court’s ruling, finding that the defendant acted lawfully and in compliance with the collective agreement, leading to the dismissal of the claim.

Infrastructure is not strictly required

The plaintiff’s extraordinary appeal to the OGH was determined not to present any substantial legal questions.

Case law states that for a break to be unpaid, it must meet these conditions:

·      The employee is informed of or can choose the location and duration.

·      Employees are not required to work or be on call during breaks and may use the time freely.

Both requirements are satisfied in this instance, as the schedules for driving and duty are predetermined, and employees are free to use their breaks at their discretion. Accordingly, these breaks should not be considered working time.

The plaintiff contended that there is no established case law regarding whether scheduled breaks must occur at a designated location to satisfy basic needs. The OGH stated that existing case law covers this issue and made it clear that whether time is considered a rest break does not depend on the infrastructure available at any point in time.

Additionally, the requirement for the plaintiff to refuel the bus during one of these breaks was considered irrelevant to the calculation.

The OGH dismissed the extraordinary appeal.

OGH, 9ObA53/25x (23 September 2025)