In a recent judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court of Justice, the appropriate way to understand in which cases there is room for remuneration for AVAILABILITY was clarified:
…the mere availability to provide services – in the events in which these do not materialise – does not in itself generate remuneration for extra work and other surcharges, but the determining element for this is that the worker cannot freely dispose of his time; an assumption that is not met in the present event, in that, as stated above, Mr Pachón Melo was not limited in his freedom to choose the use of his time, since he could carry out his personal, family or social activities…..
Therefore, in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Justice, the existence of a schedule or a statement by the workers that they are available is not sufficient for such time to be remunerated, since what really gives rise to the payment of supplementary work is “…”.that the worker cannot freely dispose of his time…”.