Overtime for part-time employees must be paid like their full-time colleagues

(B2) The judgment which has just been pronounced by the Court of Justice could call into question the French legislation on additional hours (hours paid as normal working time and not as overtime). "A national regulation which results in part-time workers being paid less than full-time workers for the same number of hours worked violates the principle of equal pay" on two conditions: (1) “if it affects a significantly higher percentage of female workers than male and (2) if it is not objectively justified” believes the ECJ (judgment of 6 December, Ursula Voß / Land Berlin, case C-300/06).

Since the first condition is structurally fulfilled in most cases (part-time work being predominantly female), all that remains for the Member State to do is prove that it is justified. The Court thus drives the point home and confirms a first judgment on the subject (Elsner judgment of 27 May 2004, C-285/02). Like the Simap – Jaeger legislation on on-call time, Member States will now have to comply.

Facts. The case arose in Germany where Me Voß is a teacher (civil servant) of the Land of Berlin. Working part-time, she provided additional lessons. But the pay she received for that time was less than what a full-time employed teacher would have received for the same number of hours. Me Voß's request to receive equivalent remuneration came up against German law (which like many European laws) allows this difference in remuneration. Illegal considers the Court which recalls, first of all, that the principle of equal pay precludes not only direct discrimination, but also any difference in treatment in application of criteria not based on sex where this it affects considerably more female workers than male workers and cannot be explained by factors that are objectively justified and unrelated to any discrimination based on sex.

Reasoning of the Court. The Court then finds that the lower remuneration for overtime entails a difference in treatment to the detriment of teachers working part-time, because they are subject to a lower rate of remuneration for the hours of lessons worked beyond their individual schedule and up to the normal full-time working hours. This difference in treatment could affect considerably more women than men. The referring court must take into account all the workers subject to the national rules in question. The Court considers that this measure does not seem objectively justified, but nevertheless invites the national court making the reference to verify this aspect.