法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 論「延長工作時間」或「值日(夜)」之認定與區別:以醫師助理/專科護理師請求加班費一案為例(On the Identification of the Extended Working Hours and Regular / Night Shift and Their Difference:The Case of Claim for Overtime-Payment by Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners as an Example)
編著譯者: 邱慧洳
出版日期: 2018.06
刊登出處: 台灣/月旦醫事法報告第 20 期 /130-134 頁
頁  數: 5 點閱次數: 618
關 鍵 詞: 延長工作時間值日(夜)專科護理師護理勞動權益
中文摘要: 勞工之工作時間,若為延長工作時間,雇主則應依勞動基準法第 24 條之規定給付加班費;若為值日(夜),雇主應給付值日(夜)津貼,至於值日(夜)津貼之金額,則由勞雇雙方議定之。本文將介紹一則從事專科護理師工作內容之醫師助理,主張其值班乃屬延長工作時間,向雇主請求加班費,但雙方對值班屬延長工作時間或值日(夜)有所爭執之判決。本件之爭點涉及延長工作時間與值日(夜)等概念,本文擬藉此判決探討延長工作時間與值日(夜)之認定與區別。
英文關鍵詞: extended working hoursregular / night shiftnurse practitionersnursing labor rights
英文摘要: If the working hours is extended, the employer should pay for overtime according to paragraph 24 Labor Standard Law. If it would be regular / night shift, the employer should pay allowance of it and it is agreed by both of the employee and the employer. A judgement is introduced in this article that physician assistants working as nurse practitioners claimed for overtime-payments which was based on shifts as extended working hours. However, there still was an argument about it. The legal issue is the concepts of extended working hours and of regular / night shifts. It would be discussed how they could be identified and be different.
目  次: 壹、案例事實
貳、爭點
參、解析
肆、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
    返回功能列