Brussels, 10/06/2010 (Agence Europe) - In a decision made on Thursday 10 June in joint cases C-395/08 and C-396/08, the European Court of Justice indicated that with regard to workers on part-time vertical employment relationship contracts (those who work full-time for limited and predetermined periods during the week, month or year), national legislation cannot exclude periods not worked in the calculation of periods of service required for obtaining a retirement pension, “unless such difference in treatment can be justified objectively”. In this regard, the ECJ considers that a framework agreement on part-time working, particularly the non-discrimination principle included in its clause 4, effectively applies to all kinds of part-time work contracts, including those of a vertical part-time employment type (e.g. for airline cabin crews) unless, for “objective reasons”, it is up to member states to decide in consultation with social partners, whether differentiated treatment is justified.
The ECJ is subsequently responding to the different questions put to the ECJ by the Rome Appeals Court, which was due to decide whether pertinent Italian legislation complied with the framework agreement on part-time work concluded in 1997 by UNICE, the CEEP and ETUC and annexed to Directive 97/81/EC. In its general considerations, the ECJ points out that the framework agreement aims to eliminate discrimination against part-time workers, improve the quality of this kind of work, facilitate its development on a voluntary basis and contribute to the flexible organisation of working time in a way that takes into account both the needs of employers and workers. Although clause 4 in this agreement prohibits any discrimination between full and part-time workers with regard to working conditions, the same criteria also apply, according to the ECJ, to social security and pension rights. In response to whether less favourable treatment results from a part-time vertical work contract and significant obstacles to workers employed on this kind of contract, compared to other part-time contracts, the ECJ points out that “clause 5.1 a” in the framework agreement stipulates the obligation on member states to identify and examine legal or administrative obstacles that can limit the opportunities included in part-time work and, if needs be, eliminate them. Consequently, if the appeals jurisdiction concludes that the national regulation in question is incompatible with clause 4 of the framework agreement, there would be reason to interpret clauses 1 and 5, paragraph 1 of this agreement in the sense that they also contest such a regulation. (F.G./transl.fl)