CJEU CASE C-660/2020 MR MK VERSUS LUFTHANSA CITYLINE GMBH Although this point is not further clarified (surprisingly enough), it seems that those thresholds (and each one of them) would be exceeded depending on the exercise by the company of its discretional organizational power, which is not required to comply with any statutory limitation and to justify its decisions, giving rise only to the right to progressive increase in remuneration, which is set at a base level with three progressive increase steps. There are not similar mechanisms in all countries and, for example, they would be unlawful due to their very nature in Italy. The question referred to the Court of Justice was clear; the “thresholds” are the same for all members of the flight crew and there is no reduction for those receiving additional days of leave. Therefore, the question was whether this is compliant with the Framework Agreement on part - time work, concluded on 6 June 1997, which is annexed to Council Directive 97 / 81 / EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part - time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC. The German company did not dispute that the employment relationship was part - time, but it argued that there would be “an objective ground justifying the difference in treatment between part - time and full - time workers. As additional remuneration is intended to compensate for a particular workload, it is only payable when the trigger thresholds are exceeded”6. 2. THE NATURE OF THE CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BY THE GERMAN PILOT The decisive point of the judgement is the classification of the contract as part - time; after solving that problem, the conclusions are quite predictable. Clause 2.1 of the Framework Agreement on part - time work, concluded on 6 June 1997, provides: “this Agreement applies to part - time workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship as defined by the law, collective agreement or practice in force in each Member State”. This provision is quoted in the judgement, which then makes reference to the definition given in clause 3.1, which provides “the term ‘part - time worker’ refers to an employee whose normal hours of work, calculated 6 This is how the judgement reads.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==