Employees with multiple jobs entitled to overtime payments for part-time posts

Download article in original language : NO9809190NNO.DOC

A Norwegian Supreme Court decision on 11 September 1998 gave an employee, employed in several different positions by the same employer, the right to overtime pay for hours worked in a part-time post.

On 11 September 1998, the Supreme Court issued a decision establishing the principle that employees employed in several different positions by the same employer, have the right to overtime pay when their total actual working time for that employer exceeds ordinary full-time working hours. The case focused on the interpretation of "overtime" in the provisions of the Worker Protection and Working Environment Act (WPWEA). Section 49 of the WPWEA regulates the use of overtime, and stipulates that overtime working shall be compensated by a pay premium of at least 40% per hour. The Supreme Court decision was given on a three-two majority verdict, after the case had been through two lower courts.

The case related to a nurse, employed by the municipality of Oslo, who claimed an overtime payment after having been employed both in a full-time and a part-time position at the same time. The two positions were tied to different sections within the municipality, and the nurse was also doing extra work for a third section. Managers in the different sections were familiar with the fact that the employee had other positions in the municipality.

The employer, the municipality of Oslo, argued against allowing overtime pay, since the work exceeding the ordinary working hours for the nurse's main position had not been imposed upon the employee by the employer. It was also argued that the work had been executed for different employers - ie that the individual departments and boroughs of Oslo should be regarded as the actual employers. Such an understanding is in accordance with several collective agreements between the municipality and the trade unions for registered nurses and auxiliary nurses. The overtime provisions in the WPWEA do not apply in situations where the hours in question arise from a second job for another employer.

The plaintiff pleaded that the provisions in the WPWEA defined overtime purely mathematically, and in such a way that work exceeding ordinary working hours must be regarded as overtime, no matter if the work is imposed on the employee or not. It was further argued that the municipality of Oslo must be considered the formal employer, even though the municipality had decentralised responsibilities and tasks.

The majority of the Supreme Court decided that work outside that of the main position must be understood as overtime work, and that the municipality of Oslo was the formal employer for all three positions. The claim that the employer did not impose the work upon the employee was not regarded as relevant. The majority stressed that the WPWEA provisions concerning overtime are applicable as long as the overtime work is sanctioned by the employer. This implies that the majority of the court decided to ignore those collective agreements stipulating that part-time positions in another borough/department do not constitute claims for overtime.