Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 17 OCTOBER 2024

Double Discrimination Against Part-Time Workers

Ius Laboris
Explore more from Ius Laboris

EU law prohibits employers from treating part-time employees less favourably than comparable full-time employees, unless such treatment is justified by objective reasons.

European UnionEmployment and HR
Yvonne Frederiksen (Norrbom Vinding)
Yvonne Frederiksen (Norrbom Vinding)

The European Court of Justice recently found that a collective agreement provision on overtime pay potentially violated the prohibition of discrimination against part-time employees as well as the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of gender.

EU law prohibits employers from treating part-time employees less favourably than comparable full-time employees, unless such treatment is justified by objective reasons. EU law also prohibits direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of gender.

The case concerned two part-time care assistants employed at a German provider of dialysis services for kidney patients. All the dialysis provider's employees were covered by a collective agreement according to which the employer only had to pay overtime pay for hours worked beyond the average full-time working hours of 38.5 hours per week.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

EU Pay Transparency Directive: Which Countries Have Transposed?

The EU Pay Transparency Directive mandates that employers with over 100 workers regularly report detailed gender pay gap information, with strict timelines to address disparities of 5% or more. The Directive also grants employees and job candidates significant pay transparency rights, including access to salary ranges and comparative pay data. This interactive map tracks the transposition status of the Directive across European Member States as the June 2026 deadline approaches.
European UnionEmployment and HR
Ius Laboris
Ius Laboris
Article

EU Pay Transparency Transposition: Belgium Implements Public Sector Portion, Private Sector Still To Come

Belgium has partially implemented the EU Pay Transparency Directive for its public sector, but private-sector employers await comprehensive federal legislation. While the transposition timeline remains uncertain, the Directive provides a clear framework for anticipated requirements including recruitment transparency, objective pay structures, employee information rights, and gender pay gap reporting that employers should begin preparing for now.
European UnionEmployment and HR
Jackson Lewis P.C.
Jackson Lewis P.C.
Article

Youth In The Digital Age: Challenges And Opportunities

As digital transformation accelerates and AI reshapes the workplace, young workers face mounting challenges in acquiring relevant skills and securing entry-level positions. This analysis examines how technological evolution, remote work dynamics, and AI-driven recruitment are creating new barriers for youth employment, while highlighting innovative government initiatives across Europe, North America, and Asia-Pacific that are helping bridge the digital skills gap.
BelgiumEmployment and HR
Ius Laboris
Ius Laboris
Article

Workplace AI In APAC: Regulation And The Direction Of Travel

Artificial intelligence is transforming workforce management across Asia-Pacific, yet most jurisdictions rely on existing employment and data protection laws rather than AI-specific legislation. Governments supplement these frameworks with ethical principles and voluntary guidance, though recent developments in Australia and Malaysia suggest a shift toward more targeted oversight of AI systems that significantly impact workers.
GlobalEmployment and HR
Ius Laboris
Ius Laboris
Article

Getting Restructuring Right In Australia And New Zealand: FAQs For Employers

Employers planning workforce reductions in Australia and New Zealand face distinct legal frameworks that require careful navigation. While both jurisdictions mandate genuine business reasons and employee consultation, critical differences in timing, process requirements, and redeployment obligations can significantly impact restructuring outcomes. Understanding these nuances is essential for organizations managing cross-border redundancy programs to minimize legal risk and operational disruption.
GlobalEmployment and HR
Ius Laboris
Ius Laboris
Article

AI Regulation In The US: The New State Laws Employers Can’t Ignore

As US state legislatures conclude their 2026 sessions, artificial intelligence regulation has transitioned from an emerging policy area to a mainstream compliance obligation. This comprehensive analysis examines the patchwork of enacted AI legislation across consumer transparency, healthcare, and employment sectors, revealing what businesses operating across state lines must prioritize in the second half of the year.
United StatesEmployment and HR
Ius Laboris
Ius Laboris
Article

The world court has spoken: What the ICJ’s ‘Right to Strike’ opinion means for Australian employers

The International Court of Justice has issued a landmark advisory opinion confirming that the right to strike is protected under ILO Convention No. 87, a treaty Australia ratified in 1973. While this opinion doesn't immediately change Australian domestic law, it creates a significant new reference point that unions may leverage in litigation, enterprise bargaining, and industrial relations reform discussions. Australian employers face potential challenges to existing Fair Work Act restrictions on protected
AustraliaEmployment and HR
Ius Laboris
Ius Laboris