Federal Labor Court strengthens part-time employees – Ruling from 11/26/2025 (Case No. 5 AZR 118/23)
Part-time employees must not be disadvantaged when it comes to bonuses for overtime compared to full-time employees. This was clarified by the Federal Labor Court (BAG) with its ruling on November 26, 2025 (Case No. 5 AZR 118/23). The decisive factor is:Overtime becomes eligible for bonuses as soon as the individually agreed working hours are exceeded – not only beyond a fixed threshold that is solely based on full-time models (e.g., from the 41st-hour week).
The ruling is relevant for many employees working part-time and regularly exceeding their contractual weekly working hours. It simultaneously increases the pressure on employers to review and adjust when collective agreements or company regulations only foresee bonuses from fixed thresholds.
The case: Bonus only from the 41st-hour week
In the underlying procedure, the plaintiff was employed by a company in the Bavarian wholesale and foreign trade. The relevant collective agreement stipulated a regular working time for full-time employees of37.5 hours per week. It was additionally regulated by the collective agreement thatup to and including the 40th-hour week no overtime bonus would be paid – only from the 41st hour would overtime be compensated witha 25% bonus.
However, the plaintiff worked part-time; his individually agreed regular weekly working hours were30.8 hours. The collective bonus regulation meant that even with a significant exceeding of his part-time hours, he would not receive a bonus for a long time as long as the total working hours remained below 41 weekly hours.
Plaintiff’s argument: structural disadvantage for part-time
The plaintiff argued that the rigid threshold (41 weekly hours) factually disadvantages part-time workers: While full-time workers receive the bonus once their working hour model is exceeded, part-time workers have to work significantly moreadditional hours before a bonus arises. This is not compatible with the prohibition of discrimination in part-time law.
The BAG’s decision: Violation of the anti-discrimination rule
The BAG at least partially upheld the claim, partially overturned the decision of the Nuremberg State Labor Court, and referred the legal dispute back for further hearings. At the same time, the court set out fundamental standards:
- A collective agreement that grants overtime bonusesregardless of individually agreed working hoursonly from a fixed weekly hours threshold (e.g., 41 hours), candisadvantage part-time employees.
- This contradicts theProhibition of discrimination, which protects part-time employees from unjustified disadvantage.
- As a result, part-time employees are fundamentally entitled to bonuses, as soon as they work beyond their individually agreed working hours (a proportional consideration is decisive).
The legal background is particularly § 4 paragraph 1 of the Part-Time and Fixed-Term Employment Act (TzBfG). According to this, part-time employees must not be treated less favorably because of part-time work compared to comparable full-time employees, unless objective reasons justify the different treatment. This justification was lacking according to the standards of the BAG.
Proportional bonus limit instead of a rigid full-time threshold
Overtime bonuses are typically intended to offset the additional burden that arises from working beyond the agreed measure. This burden does not arise for part-time employees only when they reach a full-time threshold, but already when they exceed their own contractual working hours. Therefore, it is not sufficient to generally base bonuses on a full-time value.
The BAG clarified that the parties to a collective agreement have considerable freedom of design. However, this ends where mandatory legal prohibitions on discrimination are violated. A collective agreement is not valid solely because it is regulated by a collective agreement.
Claims arise immediately – even without a change in the collective agreement
Important for practice: part-time employees do not have to wait for the parties to a collective agreement to adjust an inadmissible regulation following the decision. The right to non-discriminatory treatment can arise immediately. This means that back payments are generally possible if overtime was worked in the past that exceeded the individual working hours and bonuses were wrongly withheld.
However, whether and to what extent claims can be enforced depends on additional points – such as exclusion periods in the employment or collective agreement (often 3 months) or limitation regulations. Exclusion periods can quickly cause claims to lapse if they are not asserted in writing in a timely manner.
Practical implications for employers and employees
The decision can affect numerous collective agreements and company regulations that grant bonuses only from fixed hourly values. Particularly risky are situations where:
- the bonus limit is based on a full-time weekly working hours ,
- part-time employees frequently unexpectedly are deployed,
- the documentation of working hours is incomplete, or
- exclusion deadlines have not been observed.
Employers should review regulations regarding overtime and allowances (collective agreements, company agreements, employment contracts, company practices) and especially evaluate whether part-time employees are treated proportionally equally.Employees should document working hours and instructions for overtime work as transparently as possible and keep an eye on exclusion deadlines.
Note regarding classification
This article is intended as general information and does not replace individual consultation in specific cases. For the assessment of whether and to what extent claims exist, contract contents, collective agreements, working time records, and possible exclusion deadlines are decisive among other things.
MTR Legal Attorneys provide advice in labor law. Further information can be found under Labor Law. If you have questions, you can contact us via the contact form.
