The author presents the issue of the remuneration for overtime work in part-time employment in the context of the evolution of the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the EU with reference to the judgement in case on 19 October 2023, C-660/20, MK vs. Lufthansa CityLine and its implications for the Polish legal order. In accordance with the above mentioned ruling the national legislation which makes the payment of additional remuneration for part-time workers and comparable full-time workers uniformly contingent on the same number of working hours being exceeded in a given activity, must be regarded as a 'less favourable' treatment of part-time workers.

The Court of Justice of the EU on 11 November 2020 issued a judgement in case C-300/19, UQ vs. Marclean Technologies SLU, concerning the method of calculating the 30 or 90 days period, which should be taken into account to determine whether the dismissal is a part of "collective redundanciec" within the meaning of Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59. According to the ruling this Article must be interpreted as referring to any period of 30 or 90 consecutive days which includes the dismissal of the worker at issue.

The Court of Justice of the EU on 14 October 2020 issued a judgement in case C-681/18, JH vs. KG, which gave the Court its first opportunity to interpret Article 5(5) of Directive 2008/104 on temporary agency work. According to the ruling that provision must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which does not limit the number of successive assignments that the same temporary agency worker may fulfil at the same user undertaking and does not make the lawfulness of the use of temporary agency work subject to the prerequisite that it must be justified by technical, production, organisation or replacement-related reasons. On the other hand, that provision must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from taking no measures at all to preserve the temporary nature of temporary agency work and as precluding national legislation which does not lay down any measure to prevent successive assignments of the same temporary agency worker to the same user undertaking in order to circumvent the provisions of Directive 2008/104 as a whole.

The Court of Justice of the EU on 2 April 2020 issued a judgement in case C-670/18, CO vs. Comune di Gesturi, concerning the issue of discrimination on grounds of age. According to the ruling EU law does not preclude national legislation prohibiting public administrative authorities from awarding analysis and consultancy roles to retired persons in so far as, first, that legislation pursues a legitimate employment policy and labour market objective and, second, the means deployed to achieve that objective are appropriate and necessary.

The Court of Justice of the EU on 16 July 2020 issued a judgement in case C-610/18, AFMB Ltd and Others vs. Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank, in which the Court has interpreted the concept of ''the employer'' for the purposes of EU law concerning the application and coordination of social security systems. According to the ruling the employer of an international longdistance lorry driver, for the purposes of considered provisions, is the undertaking which has actual authority over that driver, which bears, in reality, the costs of paying wages, and which has the actual power to dismiss that driver, and not the undertaking with which that driver has concluded an employment contract and which is formally named in that contract as being the employer.

The Court of Justice of the EU on 25 June 2020 issued a judgement in joined cases C-762/18, QH vs. Varhoven kasatsionen sad na Republika Bulgaria and C-37/19, CV vs. Iccrea Banca SpA, concerning the right to paid annual leave for the period from the dismissal to the reinstatement. According to the ruling, a worker who has been unlawfully dismissed and subsequently reinstated by a ruling, is entitled to paid annual leave for the period from the date of dismissal until the date of reinstatement. This judgment seems to be important for Polish labour law practice. According to Polish jurisprudence, in the event of reinstatement, for the period of unemployment, due to the fact that this period is not the actual period of employment, the employee does not acquire rights dependent on remaining in an employment relationship, in particular, the right to paid annual leave.

The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the EU on 8 April 2020 (case European Commission vs. Republic of Poland, C-791/19 R) has ordered the suspension of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court. The Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court may not conduct disciplinary cases against judges or transfer them to courts that do not meet the criterion of independence under EU law.

The Court of Justice of the EU on 26 March 2020 issued a judgement in case C-344/18, ISS Facility Services NV vs. Sonia Govaerts, Atalian NV. The Court analysed the issue of the safeguarding of employees' rights in the situation of a transfer of an undertaking involving a number of transferees.

The Court of Justice of the EU on 7 November 2019 issued a judgement in case C-396/18, Gennaro Cafaro vs. DQ, concerning the issue of discrimination on grounds of age in the context of Italian legislation, according to which pilots may carry on their professional activities until they reach the age of 60.

The Court of Justice of the EU on 12 December 2019 issued a judgement in case C-450/18, WA vs Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), concerning the issue of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security. According to the Court, EU law precludes national legislation which makes provision for the right to a pension supplement for women who have had at least two biological or adopted children and who are in receipt of contributory permanent incapacity pensions under a scheme within the national social security system, while men in an identical situation do not have a right to such a pension supplement.

According to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU of 19 November 2019, C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, in joined cases A.K. vs. Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (C‑585/18) and CP (C‑624/18), DO (C‑625/18) vs. Sąd Najwyższy, if cases concerning the application of EU law falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of a court which is not an independent and impartial tribunal, within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the principle of the primacy of EU law must be interpreted as requiring the referring court to disapply the provision of national law which reserves jurisdiction to hear and rule on the cases in the main proceedings to the abovementioned chamber.

The Court of Justice of the EU on 3 October 2019 issued a judgement in case C-274/18, Minoo Schuch-Ghannadan vs. Medizinische Universität Wien, concerning the issue of equal treatment in employment. According to the Court, EU law precludes national legislation which provides to the fixed-term employees indicated therein a longer maximum period of employment relationships for the part-time employees than for comparable full-time employees, unless such different treatment is justified by objective reasons and proportionate.

The Court of Justice of the EU on 11 September 2019 issued a judgement in case  C-397/18,DW vs. Nobel Plastiques Ibérica SA,concerning the issue of discrimination based on a disability. According to the ruling the state of health of a worker categorised as being particularly susceptible to occupational risks, within the meaning of national law, only falls within the concept of ‘disability’, within the meaning of that directive, where that state leads to a limitation of capacity arising from, inter alia, long-term physical, mental or psychological impairments which, in interaction with various barriers, may hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in their professional life on an equal basis with other workers. Moreover a dismissal for objective reasons based on criteria of productivity and absenteeism, constitutes indirect discrimination on grounds of disability, unless the employer has beforehand provided that worker with reasonable accommodation, within the meaning of Article 5 of that directive, in order to guarantee compliance with the principle of equal treatment in relation to persons with disabilities.