Offshore worker not entitled to exemption from night shifts

An oil service employee who worked offshore applied for an exemption from night work for health reasons, see section 10-2 subsection 2 of the Working Environment Act. Like the previous instances, the Supreme Court found that the condition that such an exemption would not create "major inconvenience to the undertaking" was not met. A majority of four justices found that the provision in section 10-2 subsection 2, which was meant to implement the EU Working Time Directive (Directive 2003/88/EC), gave better employee protection than what follows from the Directive. The starting point was that the employee's health problems set a high threshold for what constituted major inconvenience for the undertaking. In the individual assessment, the Court referred to the organisational problems an exemption would entail for the undertaking, the consideration for the other employees, who would then have to take more night work, and to the proposed offer of work on land, which the employee had not wanted to discuss. The pay-related consequences a transfer to work on land would entail were not given weight. One justice, who came to the same result as the majority, placed decisive emphasis on the offer of alternative work on land. The appeal against the Court of Appeal's judgment, which dismissed the appeal against the District Court judgment for the undertaking, was dismissed. Dissent 4-1 with regard to the reasoning.  

Read the whole judgment (Norwegian only) (PDF)

Areas of law: Employment law. Section 10-2 subsection 2 of the Working Environment Act. EEA law. (The Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC) Article 9 (1) (b) and on the interpretation of provisions in directives.

Key paragraphs: 44, 47, 49, 53, 58, 59, 67,

Justices: Indreberg, Bull, Thyness, Hellerslia, Stenvik