THE Advocate General of the EU Court of Justice is to issue an opinion tomorrow which could affect the rights of 10,000 public service workers who are job sharing.
A test case has been taken by the CPSU, Civil and Public Service Union. If successful, the Government faces a rise of £16 million a year in the public service pay bill.
The case could also affect Government proposals to make job-sharing more accessible in the public service. If the EU Court of Justice rules in favour of the union, this could considerably increase the potential cost of such an initiative.
Among workers who may be affected by the decision are civil servants, nurses, teachers and local authority employees.
The case involves increments for public service workers on job-share. The CPSU took the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners to the Labour court over their treatment of two woman clerical workers who had been on a job-share for two years and then returned to full-time work.
During the two years the women were on job-share, they received the same annual increments they would have received if they had been working full-time. However, when they returned full-time, the women found that one of the increments was "clawed back".
Management argued that increments had to be based on hours worked rather than calendar years' of service. The CPSU claimed that as 98 per cent of its members on job-share in the clerical grade concerned were women, it was an indirect form of discrimination. It also claimed the rule discriminated against the women as it effectively reduces their hourly rate of pay.
An equality officer ruled in favour of the union. However, the Department of Finance and Revenue Commissioners appealed to the Labour Court which referred the case to the EU Court of Justice, last year.
The Labour Court asked the EU court for guidance on three issues.
The first was whether a primal facie case of indirect discrimination arose where job-sharing workers converted to full-time employment.
If so, the Labour Court asked if the employer had to provide special justification for its different treatment of job-sharers.
It also asks if increments have to be justified by reference to factors other than time served, such as extra experience or skills.
The European Commission has supported the CPSU case. It has told the EU Court of Justice that if far more woman than men are affected by the withholding of incremental credits from job-sharers, then this was contrary to EU treaties and equality directives.
The Advocate General's opinion is the preliminary phase of the EU court's adjudication process. If it is given in favour of the CPSU, then it is likely that the full court judgment will concur.