New Labour Framework: Working Time Limits & Their Exceedance
(Articles 7 and 16 of Law No. 5239/2025)

We have already emphasised the significance of the changes introduced by Law No. 5239/2025 to the institutional framework of Greek labour law. The focus, however (at least at the level of public discourse), has almost exclusively centred on the provision extending the possibility of overtime work by one (1) hour per day to employees working for a single employer. This article addresses that provision.

Introduction

It is necessary, by way of introduction, to clarify that the legislative framework governing the maximum annual limits of overtime work, the average weekly working time over a reference period of up to four months, the scope of daily and weekly additional work, as well as the applicable surcharges for additional work and lawful or unlawful overtime, remains unchanged. The legislative amendment focuses on the permissible duration of overtime work and on the protection of employees who refuse to work overtime.

Additional Work and Overtime

(a) Additional Work

Within the framework of a five-day working system with a weekly contractual working time of forty (40) hours, the employee (is obliged, if so required by the employer, to) work up to five (5) additional hours per week. These hours constitute additional work. Correspondingly, in a six-day working system with a weekly contractual working time of forty (40) hours, additional work is deemed to be any work beyond the contractual working time and up to the statutory weekly limit (of 48 hours).

Additional work is, in all cases, remunerated with a 20% surcharge on the hourly wage paid (Article 194 §1 of Presidential Decree No. 62/2025).

(b) Overtime

Overtime constitutes weekly work performed by the employee in excess of forty-five (45) hours in undertakings operating under a five-day working system. Correspondingly, for employees in undertakings operating under a six-day working system, overtime is work performed beyond forty-eight (48) hours per week.

(Lawful) overtime is remunerated at the hourly wage paid, increased by 40% (Article 194 §3 of Presidential Decree No. 62/2025). Unlawful overtime (i.e. in cases of non-declaration, exceeding the annual limit of 150 hours or exceeding four hours per day) is remunerated at the hourly wage paid, increased by 120% (Article 194 §5 of Presidential Decree No. 62/2025).

Scope of Overtime Work

The maximum permitted daily limit of overtime work is increased to four (4) hours (Article 7 of Law No. 5239/2025, amending Article 194 §3 of Presidential Decree No. 62/2025). This means that an employee working, for example, eight (8) hours per day may now perform one (1) hour of additional work and up to four (4) hours of overtime work; accordingly, they may work up to a total of thirteen (13) hours within a 24-hour period. For each hour of overtime work, remuneration equal to the hourly wage paid increased by 40% is due.

In any event, the possibility of working up to thirteen (13) hours per day already existed under the previous legislative framework for employees working for two or more employers. This possibility is now extended to employees working for a single employer. This extension is, however, subject to specific restrictions and strict conditions.

Restrictions

(a) Maximum annual limit

The law permits up to one hundred and fifty (150) hours of overtime work per year per employee (Article 194 §3 of Presidential Decree No. 62/2025). In practice, this means that an employee may now perform (up to) four (4) hours of overtime work for approximately thirty-seven (37) days per year (150/4 ≈ 37.5 days).

(b) Maximum average weekly working time

Under the previous legislative framework, weekly working time could not exceed, over a reference period of up to four (4) months, an average of forty-eight (48) hours, including overtime (Article 174 of Presidential Decree No. 62/2005). This restriction remains in force.

(c) Compliance with weekly and daily rest periods

For each 24-hour period, the minimum rest period may not be less than eleven (11) consecutive hours (Article 171 of Presidential Decree No. 62/2005). This means that four (4) hours of overtime work cannot be applied where a break is granted outside working hours or where work is provided intermittently. In such cases, four-hour overtime work is not permissible, as it would entail a breach of the required eleven (11) consecutive hours of rest. It is noted that interruption of the 11-hour rest period is not permissible even in cases of emergency (e.g. recall of employees of critical specialisation in cases of breakdowns or accidents).

Protection of the Right to Refuse Overtime

A necessary condition for the provision of overtime work is the employee’s consent: overtime work cannot be imposed unilaterally.

According to the relevant provision (Article 7 of Law No. 5239/2025), the employee retains the right to refuse to perform overtime work, without this constituting grounds for termination of the employment contract or giving rise to adverse consequences or discrimination against the employee. Indeed, pursuant to the law (Article 16 of Law No. 5239/2025), any dismissal of an employee who refuses to perform overtime work is absolutely null and void.

According to the applicable provisions (Article 350 §3 of Presidential Decree No. 62/2025), where the employee proves before a court facts capable of supporting the belief that the dismissal was effected due to refusal to perform overtime work, the burden of proof is reversed. This means that the employer is then required to prove that the dismissal was not effected for the alleged reason. We have already set out our concerns regarding the legislative intervention on the burden of proof in previous publications. It is, however, important to note that such employee, instead of invoking the invalidity of the termination, is entitled to claim additional compensation.

Overall Assessment of the New Provisions

The provisions of the recent labour law (Law No. 5239/2025) and the aforementioned adjustments relating to overtime work combine flexibility with employee protection. The possibility of working up to thirteen (13) hours per day does not, strictly speaking, constitute a “new” reality for Greek law—still less for European law (Article 3 of Directive 2003/88/EC). It is now granted to employees working for a single employer, a right already recognised in cases of parallel employment (Article 171 of Presidential Decree No. 62/2025).

The new provisions allow for greater adaptability, albeit under strict rules.

The protection of the right to refuse overtime work constitutes an important step in balancing the employer–employee relationship, preventing arbitrary or abusive practices. At the same time, compliance with daily and weekly working time limits, as well as adherence to the annual limit of permitted overtime hours, constitutes a further safeguard for the protection of employees’ health and safety.

We must, however, emphasise that the issue of regulating the need for the recall of employees of critical specialisation—addressed in a recent publication—remains unresolved. The present legislative reform continues to overlook an issue crucial to addressing urgent operational needs—not only of undertakings. It appears that we are now consciously choosing to remain inactive. We await legislative developments with particular interest, hoping for the satisfaction of the obvious and pressing need to improve the relevant regulatory framework.

The minimal extension (by just one hour) of the maximum daily working time limit to employees working for a single employer provided sufficient grounds for protest by those usually inclined to protest. Nevertheless, it meets current needs of the Greek economy, sound entrepreneurship and common sense, and provides (in combination with the provisions on the digital work card) adequate safeguards for employees. We await confirmation of the beneficial effects of the position set out herein. We also look forward to the introduction of absolutely necessary exceptions to the 11-hour rest period in cases involving the recall of employees of critical specialisation—such as, for example, the French model.-

Stavros Koumentakis

Managing Partner

Koumentakis and Associates Law Firm