Facts
The appellant [A.] and the respondent [B. AG] concluded a "contract of employment" on 3 December 2014. According to the agreement, [A.] was to take over the deputy role of the head of the "Representation and Sales" department of [B. AG] in the event that the incumbent was absent. However, this case did not arise. The parties disputed the legal classification of the contract and whether [A.] could claim compensation for the alleged standby duty in the months of January to May 2015. The Cantonal Court of Schwyz dismissed [A.] 's appeal and confirmed the first-instance judgment, as [A.] had not shown how the on-call duty, if any, had restricted his time management.Considerations
The DFC states that in the case of genuine on-call work, the employee's standby duty must generally be compensated. A minor restriction on the employee's free time management is to be taken into account in the amount of compensation, but does not lead to the complete elimination of the obligation to pay compensation. The lower court has thus violated federal law by denying an obligation to pay…