The Equal Pay Directive (Directive 2006/54/EC) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 aims to ensure gender equality in employment and to improve European legislation on the subject of equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation.
In Joined Cases C-184/22 and C-185/22, requests for a preliminary ruling under Art. 267 TFEU from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labour Court, Germany), the European Court of Justice (ECJ) was called to pronounce on the interpretation of:
• the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation [Art. 157 TFEU, Art. 2 and the first paragraph of Art. 4 of Directive 2006/54/EC];
• part-time work [Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997].
These questions arose in proceedings between two workers and their employer concerning additional pay for overtime hours worked beyond those in their part-time contracts.
Context
The part-time care assistants initiated legal action before the Arbeitsgericht (Labour Court, Germany), seeking compensation under Paragraph 15 of the AGG (German General Equal Treatment Act) for the lack of overtime pay.
They argued:
• to have been treated less favourably than full-time workers based solely on their part-time status;
• to have suffered indirect sex discrimination, given that most part-time roles in the company were held by women.
While the Labour Court rejected the claims, the Landesarbeitsgericht Hessen partially upheld them:
• it ordered that overtime be credited in time-savings accounts;
• but denied monetary compensation under Paragraph 15 AGG.
Main questions to the Court
The Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht) referred two key questions to the Court of Justice of the EU:
- Does the EU Case Law (Art. 157 TFEU and Directive 2006/54) mean that paying overtime only beyond full-time hours constitutes unequal treatment for part-time workers?
- If yes, does part-time discrimination on gender grounds exist solely because significantly more women work part-time—even if the full-time staff isn’t mostly male?
The Court’s answer
The ECJ ruled that Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement intends to promote equal treatment of part-time workers, prohibiting less favourable treatment unless objectively justified. If both part-time and full-time employees perform similar duties, their treatment must be equivalent.
Resolution to the first matter
Since part-time care assistants were denied extra pay for hours exceeding their individual contracts (but under 38.5 hours), the Court found this to be less favourable treatment versus full-time workers. The system failed to pro-rate the threshold for overtime, in violation of Clause 4.
Resolution to the second matter
The Court clarified that indirect discrimination may be established when a provision disadvantages a significantly higher proportion of one gender.
Thus, it is not necessary for the unaffected group (full-time workers) to be mostly men—it suffices that part-time workers (mostly women) are negatively impacted.
Workplace Legal InsightsStudio Legale Riviera – www.studiolegaleriviera.it
