Facts
The case concerns a work stoppage due to bad weather, for which the employer claims entitlement to bad weather compensation. The lower instance had made the payment of the compensation dependent on the employer having to take reasonable precautions such as covering window openings and using a warm air heater to protect the employees from the weather conditions and enable the work to continue.
The Federal Court disagrees with this view. It states that the requirement of a "work stoppage necessarily caused by the weather" under the law does not mean that the employer must necessarily take protective measures. Rather, the law provides that bad weather compensation is also granted if extensive and costly measures to continue the work are unreasonable and not customary in the industry concerned.
In the present case, according to the findings of the cantonal Office for Industry, Commerce and Labor, it was not reasonable for the appellant to carry out the necessary installations, as the client rejected them. Therefore, there is an accountable work stoppage, provided that the other requirements for entitlement are met.
Considerations
The Federal Court therefore concludes that the legal requirement of a "work stoppage necessarily caused by the weather" does not mean that the employer must necessarily take protective measures, provided that these are costly, unreasonable and…