Facts
This case was about the compensation for overtime work of a professional motor vehicle driver. The appellant (X.) had sued the respondent (Y.) as the parties disputed the extent to which any overtime had already been compensated by the agreed-upon salary. The lower court assumed that according to the parties' common understanding, only actual overtime hours worked within the weekly maximum working time of 46 hours were compensated by the salary. Overtime beyond that was to be compensated with the base salary and a statutory surcharge pursuant to Art. 13 para. 1 of the Employment Act (ArG). The appellant, however, argued that the terms "maximum working time" in the Employment Act and the Drivers' Ordinance (ARV 1) were not identical. In his view, the permissible overtime work according to Art. 7 ARV 1 constituted overtime work within the meaning of the Code of Obligations (OR), so that an exclusion of compensation would be permissible.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court reached the following conclusion: - The term "maximum working time" is to be equated in the Employment Act and the Drivers' Ordinance, as the purpose and structure of the provisions are largely analogous. - The Drivers' Ordinance regulates not only the permissible working time, but also its compensation. Art. 7 para. 3 ARV 1 refers to Art. 321c para.…