| Summary: | After a historical reconstruction of the theoretical framework of working time (from Barassi onwards), the Author argues that the continuity of the performance of the service is not (and has never been) an element of law with respect to the qualifying operations of the relationship, there is no reference to working time in art. 2094 cc; indeed, neither the predefinition within the negotiation program of the quantum of the obligation to work, nor the predefinition of the temporal location of the benefits, nor the continuity thereof are necessary elements of the case, because this theoretical framework ignores the case-law elaboration on the 'minimum technical-temporal unit', under which work has no meaning; It is precisely this case law which shows, on the one hand, that the active behaviour of the worker is not boundlessly divisible into fractions of time and, on the other, that the proprium of subordination is to be found only in the double alienity, and not in the quantity and pervasiveness of the orders and provisions materially given by the employer to the employee.
|
|---|