Meanwhile, two legal cases are underway in which individual trade unions have brought actions citing EU Court of Justice case law.
The issue, brought into focus by the EU Court of Justice rulings in the Lufthansa City Line and Kuratorium für Dialyse cases, is similar to that in Denmark and Sweden, but with some differences in the legal regulation of part-time work.
Read this article in Swedish on Arbeidsliv i Norden
It soon became an issue between the largest employers’ and employees’ organisations in both the public and private sectors. The partners maintained contact and discussions into 2025, but they were far from reaching any consensus.
In September, the Norwegian Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion appointed a working group led by an independent external person which included representatives from both sides among the social partners.
This has not deterred individual trade unions from bringing cases before the courts. Two district court rulings from early 2026 followed the line taken by the CJEU and upheld the unions’ claims.
The rulings have been appealed to the Court of Appeal. The working group continues its work, however. Its remit is extensive.
The working group will develop “proposals for necessary measures”. It will examine the economic and societal consequences as well as the effect on the labour market and labour supply.
This is particularly relevant for parts of the public sector, like healthcare and care services. The consequences for the municipal sector, where overtime pay for additional hours would likely have the most far-reaching consequences, will be assessed separately.
Part of the working group’s remit is to look at how CJEU rulings are followed up in different EEA countries (including EU member states), map the extent of additional hours worked and assess rules on part-time employees’ right to priority access to extra hours and their right to reduced working time.
To put it mildly, the task is extensive. The social partners are sharply divided. It is difficult to see who the working group can fully complete its mandate or even arrive at workable proposals for solutions.
Going down the route of collective agreements (like in Sweden) does not appear possible in Norway, and the legislative route would at best be extremely complex.
The working group’s deadline is also not realistic. It is due to present a report to the ministry by 1 September this year.
The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Norway may, in the ongoing legal proceedings, potentially provide some overarching considerations that offer a degree of guidance, but they will not have a general effect.
A Danish solution, where the Labour Court effectively “forces” the social partners to adjust their collective agreements in line with CJEU case law, is also not conceivable in Norway because of the structure of the collective bargaining system and its relatively low level of coverage.
The article was first published in EU & Arbetsrätt, number 2/2026: Övertidstillägg för deltidsanställda svårlöst problem i Norge – EU och Arbetsrätt
