Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The contract says you're not entitled to compensation for overtime. As far as the law is concerned, I see no problem here whatsoever. You don't. The Bundesarbeitsgericht (the highest court for labor disputes) does: https://juris.bundesarbeitsgericht.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung... You can include clauses that allow limited unpaid overtime, for example "36 hours per week and up to 16 hours of unpaid overtime per month"…
If you actually look at the court case, the guy won because the contract was unclear on its terms, not because such terms are inadmissable in general. That's why the lower court didn't decide in his favor. The decision doesn't generalize across all contracts. > You can include clauses that allow limited unpaid overtime, for example "36 hours per week and up to 16 hours of unpaid overtime per month", but then, as an e…
They are. Quote from the courts press release:
> Der vertragliche Ausschluss jeder zusätzlichen Vergütung von Mehrarbeit war wegen Intransparenz nach § 307 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BGB unwirksam.
§307 Abs. 1 Satz 2 is "Unangemessene Benachteiligung" (see https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__307.html), a lopsided clause that favors one party of the contract, usually the stronger party.
The court ruled that the terms are unclear because it is not known to the employee how many hours he might have to work for his wage. A clause stipulating unlimited unoaid overtime can never fulfill that requirement. Thus unlimited overtime is inadmissible in the general case, except for the cases I listed previously.
The relevant quote from the ruling (which is linked from the courts press release) is:
"a) Die Parteien haben zwar in Tz. 4.4. des Arbeitsvertrags bestimmt, dass der Kläger für Über- und Mehrarbeit keine gesonderte Vergütung erhalte. Diese Regelung ist jedoch nach § 307 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BGB unwirksam, weil sie nicht klar und verständlich ist, § 307 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BGB."
and
"Eine die pauschale Vergütung von Überstunden regelnde Klausel ist nur dann klar und verständlich, wenn sich aus dem Arbeitsvertrag selbst ergibt, welche Arbeitsleistungen in welchem zeitlichen Umfang von ihr erfasst werden sollen. Der Arbeitnehmer muss bereits bei Vertragsschluss erkennen können, was gegebenenfalls „auf ihn zukommt“ und welche Leistung er für die vereinbarte Vergütung maximal erbringen muss (BAG 1. September 2010 - 5 AZR 517/09 - Rn. 15 mwN, BAGE 135, 250; 17. August 2011 - 5 AZR 406/10 - Rn. 14 mwN, EzA BGB 2002 § 612 Nr. 10)."
> > You can include clauses that allow limited unpaid overtime, for example "36 hours per week and up to 16 hours of unpaid overtime per month", but then, as an employee, you should treat that as a 40 hours contract.
> That's besides the point. The question is, is that paid overtime? If you ask me, it isn't because any extra hour worked doesn't translate into extra money.
That's why I said "if your contract stipulates unpaid overtime, treat is as part of your regular work time." If you get to work less, fine, but assume you have to work the maximum time stipulated in the contract. (weekly time plus max overtime)
> from what I read in other places, it seems commonplace.
I'd not call it commonplace, but in some areas it's not uncommon. It's still inadmissible in most cases, but as I said before, people don't sue so companies don't learn their lesson.