INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM, TRAVEL AND HOSPITALITY LAW per cent and the applicant in the main proceedings receives additional thirty - seven days of leave per year”2. This point is decisive, as, because of the very nature of his job, the employee’s working hours cannot be determined with any certainty beforehand and vary. The very fact that the employee receives additional days of leave is grounds for the classification of the employment relationship by the ruling, which reads: “even if his weekly working hours are not fixed due to the specific nature of his profession, it is also common ground that (...) he works fewer hours per year than a full - time pilot, since, in return for a ten per cent reduction in salary, he is granted thirty - seven additional days of annual leave to give effect to the reduction in his working hours”3. Nevertheless, not necessarily does containment take place on a daily, weekly or monthly basis and, quite to the contrary, if we are not mistaken, the decrease in the overall duty is associated only to the awarding of more days of leave. This makes the precedent unparalleled and less important. For example, in Italy, any similar agreement would not be a part - time contract, as it requires prior and strict determination of the shorter working hours and their chronological arrangement, while the reference to days of leave should imply the subsequent identification of the pilot’s additional periods off, although this point is not examined in the Court’s decision. The judgement concerns the criteria for awarding additional remuneration or zusätzliche Vergütung4. The German term must be considered, as its translation may prove misleading. For example, this happens with its translation into Italian as the expression retribuzione supplementare is grammatically correct, but likely to be misleading, because the term would have a different meaning and would evoke concepts that have nothing to do with the employment relationship’s specific mechanisms. Indeed, zusätzliche Vergütung is governed on a contractual basis and is payable when its “trigger thresholds are exceeded”. Having regard to the case in question, the trigger thresholds are the 106th, 121st and 136th monthly flying duty hours, to be reckoned afterwards, based on the actual work performed5. 2 This is how the judgement reads. 3 This is how the judgement reads. 4 This is how the judgement reads, in its German version. 5 This is how the judgement reads.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==