Dealing with part-time overtime is a familiar challenge for many workers: they put in additional hours but receive no bonus because collective agreement thresholds place them at a disadvantage. A landmark ruling by the Nuremberg Regional Labour Court (LAG Nürnberg) has now significantly strengthened the rights of part-time employees.
Part-Time Overtime: When Are Employees Entitled to Overtime Premiums?
Overtime bonuses are additional payments made by employers when staff work beyond their agreed contractual hours. In German labour law, an important distinction is made between overtime worked by full-time staff and extra hours worked by part-time employees. Full-time overtime generally refers to hours exceeding the standard collective or company working week, whereas for part-time workers, any hour worked beyond their individual contractual agreement counts as extra work.
Whether and to what extent an overtime premium is paid usually depends on the applicable collective bargaining agreement (Tarifvertrag) or the employment contract. Many collective agreements stipulate that bonuses are only triggered after reaching a specific threshold of hours per month or year. However, such thresholds often disadvantage part-time employees because they are statistically far less likely to reach these absolute limits than their full-time colleagues.
Section 4 of the German Part-Time and Fixed-Term Employment Act (Teilzeit- und Befristungsgesetz, TzBfG) explicitly prohibits treating part-time employees less favourably than comparable full-time employees unless objective reasons justify the differentiation. This principle also applies directly to collective agreements. If a clause violates this non-discrimination rule, that specific provision is legally void.
In practice, questions frequently arise regarding the proper calculation of bonus pay for part-time staff. As a rule, part-time employees are entitled to the same overtime bonuses as full-time workers when working extra hours. If this entitlement is undermined by rigid collective thresholds, it may constitute unlawful discrimination.
The Case: The High Hurdle of 168 Additional Hours
The case decided by the LAG Nürnberg (Ref. 7 SLa 272/25) involved a parcel delivery driver who had been employed part-time at 25 hours per week since 2003. His collective agreement for the Bavarian forwarding and logistics sector stated that overtime bonuses would only be paid once an employee completed more than 168 additional hours per year.
In April 2020, the claimant worked a total of 20.40 extra hours beyond his agreed schedule. Because he remained well below the annual threshold of 168 hours, the employer refused to pay an overtime bonus. The employee claimed a gross surcharge of €96.69 and succeeded before the Nuremberg Labour Court. The employer subsequently appealed the decision.
The Nuremberg Regional Labour Court upheld the initial ruling, confirming that the collective provision requiring 168 hours violated Section 4 (1) TzBfG. Part-time employees who work extra hours would be disadvantaged compared to full-time staff who receive premiums much sooner relative to their full schedule. The court also rejected the employer’s request to pause proceedings to let collective bargaining parties revise the agreement, noting that non-discrimination statutory law takes precedence.
Discrimination Against Part-Time Employees: When Is a Rule Invalid?
The LAG Nuremberg decision clarifies that collective thresholds for overtime premiums violate anti-discrimination law whenever they disproportionately exclude part-time staff without objective justification. Under Section 4 (1) TzBfG, different treatment is only permissible if based on genuine, objective factors unrelated to part-time status.
In the case of the 168-hour requirement, no such objective justification existed. The court observed that part-time staff working occasional extra hours would virtually never reach the threshold, while full-time staff benefit from extra pay much more readily. This decision aligns with established rulings from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the Federal Labour Court (BAG), both of which prohibit disadvantageous pay structures for part-time workers.
For employees, this means that if a collective agreement or company agreement attaches overtime bonuses to an excessively high threshold, that clause may be null and void. Affected workers may claim their unpaid bonuses retroactively, subject to statutory limitation periods and collective preclusion deadlines.
What the Ruling Means for Part-Time Employees
This court ruling carries major practical implications for anyone working part-time under collective agreements containing high overtime hurdles. It provides clear legal backing to demand fair compensation when taking on extra shifts. Similar principles of equal treatment also apply to other elements of remuneration, such as pro-rata Christmas bonuses or the inflation compensation bonus.
Part-time workers should review their employment and collective agreements carefully. If you regularly work additional hours, keep detailed records of all shifts worked beyond your contractual schedule. These logs are crucial evidence when asserting monetary claims against an employer.
Because collective agreements must comply with overriding statutory non-discrimination law, clauses that unfairly restrict premiums for part-time overtime cannot simply be enforced as written. Employees who suspect they have been denied rightful premiums should seek advice from a specialist employment lawyer (Fachanwalt für Arbeitsrecht) to review their claims.
Seeking Professional Legal Support
If you want to claim unpaid bonuses, the first step is reviewing your contract and applicable collective agreements. When assessing complex clauses and tight preclusion deadlines—which often require claims to be asserted in writing within three months—a qualified employment lawyer can determine whether a provision violates statutory law and assist in enforcing payment.
Legal disputes can involve financial risks. While legal aid (Prozesskostenhilfe) is an option for eligible individuals, modern litigation funding offers an alternative path to pursue legitimate claims without personal cost exposure.
RechtStark: Litigation Funding for Employment Disputes
RechtStark is a litigation funder that helps employees enforce their legal rights without shouldering financial risk. We are not a law firm, we do not provide legal advice, and we do not represent clients in court. Instead, we evaluate and finance legal proceedings conducted by independent specialist employment lawyers.
If you have substantial claims for unpaid premiums or face related workplace disputes and want to eliminate legal cost risks, litigation funding can cover court and attorney fees. In exchange, the funder receives an agreed share of the recovered proceeds only if the case is successful—if the claim fails, you bear no financial downside.
The LAG Nuremberg ruling marks a crucial step toward equal pay and fair conditions for part-time staff. Reviewing your past hours and understanding your contractual rights ensures that your extra work is properly and fairly compensated.
Note: This article is for general information purposes only and does not replace individual legal advice. For a free initial assessment of whether litigation funding may be an option for your case, you can contact RechtStark.