On-call duty: the time in this apartment is working time

A kitchen does not make a home. The Federal Supreme Court said so in judgment 1C_505/2025 of 24 August 2026, on one on-call duty in Switzerland. An ambulance worker stayed in a staff apartment, in uniform, ready to leave within a few minutes. The First Public Law Division dismisses the employer's appeal. In this case, all the time on standby is working time. On-call duty that can truly be spent at home follows another rule.

The file

The qualified ambulance worker, HF diploma, is employed from 1 June 2018. The contract of 23 April 2018 sets an 80 % workload on a base of 42 hours. The monthly salary is CHF 5,120 for that rate. At 100 % it is CHF 6,400.

On 27 June 2023 she claims CHF 81,993.70 gross. The sum covers 2,004 hours of on-call duty, from 1 June 2018 to 31 December 2021. She describes 1,466 of them as overtime under the Labour Act, with a supplement of 25 %.

On 8 July 2025 the Obergericht of the Grisons orders the employer to pay CHF 79,285.60 net, plus interest of 5 % from 1 August 2023. The Federal Supreme Court does not set that figure again. It does not set the 25 % supplement. It is bound by the facts found in the canton.

The dispute it decides is the classification of this on-call duty. Is it standby within the workplace, or on-call duty outside?

The appeal is dismissed. The court costs are CHF 2,000. The procedural indemnity is CHF 3,000. Both are placed on the employer.

The workplace and outside

Article 15 paragraph 1 of Ordinance 1 to the Labour Act (OLT 1) counts all on-call time as working time when the duty is performed in the workplace. Paragraph 2 covers duty outside. Only the actual call-out and the travel time then count as working time.

The difference lies in freedom. Outside the workplace, the person in principle has more ways to rest. On-call duty counts as outside the workplace only if the person can truly use that freedom. That is not so when she must respond within a very short time. The judgment cites the example of 15 minutes after the call, taken from judgments 4A_94/2010 and 4A_523/2010. Fifteen minutes are not a statutory threshold for every occupation. Articles 14 and following of OLT 1 do not set the length of a response time.

Article 8a paragraph 3 of Ordinance 2 (OLT 2) covers inactive on-call duty that must be performed in the workplace because of that time limit. All the time made available is then working time.

Paragraph 2 provides another regime. It opens a credit of 10 % of inactive on-call time when the limit is under 30 minutes for imperative reasons. The Federal Supreme Court says that this paragraph does not apply here. The employer argued the opposite, including for a limit of 5, 10 or 15 minutes. That reading would have narrowed article 15 paragraph 1. The Court stays with its case law.

On-call duty that the person can truly perform at home is not treated the same way. Home allows contacts and occupations that the workplace premises do not. The judgment recalls this with judgments 4A_11/2016 and 4A_94/2010.

The response times of this apartment

The times found are 5 minutes by day and 10 minutes at night. After the IVR certification of 7 September 2021, they fall to 2 minutes by day and 5 minutes at night. Both sets fall within the period claimed. These times were not disputed. In so short a span, leisure and contact remain very limited. Five minutes, two minutes or fifteen minutes do not thereby become a legal limit for every occupation.

She had to stay in uniform and ready to respond. The apartment was shared, bathroom and kitchen included. Sharing with people one hardly knows is not sharing with a spouse. Sleeping in a bed used by several people is not sleeping in one's own bed.

The Obergericht likened this apartment to on-call rooms in the hospital. It set it apart from home. A kitchen and ordinary rooms do not make it a private home. At home, one can see family or friends, keep house, look after children. Those acts of free time do not transfer to a place that is imposed.

The employer treated this assessment as arbitrary. Visits were allowed. One can watch a series, write online, step into a nearby shop. The Federal Supreme Court answers that this is the employer's view. The shared apartment does not offer the same privacy as home. Contact with colleagues is not contact with family. An exchange online does not have the quality of a meeting. The finding rests on objective criteria. It is free of arbitrariness.

The consequence remains that of this case. All the time made available is working time, under article 15 paragraph 1 OLT 1 and article 8a paragraph 3 OLT 2.

What this judgment does not decide

It does not say that all on-call duty at home is working time. It does not say that every dwelling outside the hospital walls counts as the workplace. It classifies this duty, with these time limits, this uniform and this shared dwelling.

It does not apply the credit of 10 %. That credit is the one in article 8a paragraph 2, where that paragraph applies. Here, the Court says that it does not apply.

It makes neither 5 minutes nor 15 minutes a threshold for every occupation. Fifteen minutes are an example cited in the case law. Five, ten, two and five minutes are the times found for this ambulance worker.

It does not set the supplement of 25 %. It does not recalculate the CHF 79,285.60. Those points remain with the Obergericht. The Federal Supreme Court reviews the classification of the time.

It does not deal with the proof of contractual overtime. Who must prove a number of hours, and how to estimate a doubtful record, is another question. Here, the debate is whether inactive on-call time counts as working time.

The judgment concerns a hospital employee, in a public-law employment dispute. It applies OLT 1 and OLT 2 to this on-call duty. Another role, or another time limit, may lead to another classification. The Labour Act does not cover every role.

Common questions

• Is on-call duty in a staff apartment always working time? No. Here, the very short time limit, the uniform and the shared dwelling prevented real rest. The name of the dwelling is not enough.
• Does on-call duty at home count in full? No. Where the person can truly rest at home, article 15 paragraph 2 OLT 1 counts only the actual call-out and the travel.
• Are five or fifteen minutes the legal limit? No. Those are the times in this case, and an example cited in other judgments. OLT 1 does not set one duration for every occupation.
• Is the credit of 10 % due as soon as the limit falls under 30 minutes? Not in this judgment. Article 8a paragraph 2 OLT 2 provides for it when its conditions are met. The Court says that the paragraph does not apply when all the time is already working time.
• Did the Federal Supreme Court fix the CHF 79,285.60 and the supplement of 25 %? No. It does not recalculate. It also does not decide the proof of contractual overtime.
• What should be gathered before asking the question? The contract, the on-call rosters, the response times, the instructions on uniform and presence, and the accounts.

Avocados AI's Basic plan costs CHF 4.99 a month, the price of a coffee. It is there to organise the contract, the rosters and the accounts, and to prepare the questions. It does not replace a lawyer's review of the file. The guide to Swiss employment law sets out the frame of the contract, working time and salary.

Sources

Federal Supreme Court, judgment 1C_505/2025 of 24 August 2026, First Public Law Division. Obergericht of the Grisons, judgment of 8 July 2025. Ordinance 1 of 10 May 2000 to the Labour Act (OLT 1; SR 822.111), article 15. Ordinance 2 of 10 May 2000 to the Labour Act (OLT 2; SR 822.112), article 8a. Judgments cited by the Federal Supreme Court: 4A_94/2010 of 4 May 2010, 4A_523/2010 of 22 November 2010, 4A_11/2016 of 7 June 2016. SECO commentary on the Labour Act and on Ordinances 1 and 2, version of February 2026, cited by the judgment. Only the official publication is authoritative.