The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has endorsed this Friday that the airline Air Nostrum pays subsistence allowances less than cabin crew – with a majority of women – than the pilots – with a majority of men -, because although their agreements are different, this compensation It is part of the working conditions and not the salary.
The European ruling contradicts the conclusions of the Advocate General, who did see discrimination, and points out that European legislation it only prohibits the difference in treatment in the remuneration of workers if it refers to the same job or to a job to which the same value is attributed, while the allowances in dispute are not paid as compensation for a work benefit, but rather They fall within the concept of remuneration and not that of working conditions.
Difference in treatment in staff remuneration
The CJEU indicates that the difference in treatment in the remuneration of cabin crew and pilots could only constitute indirect discrimination due to reason of sex if paid for the same job or for a job to which the same value is attributed, while, in his opinion, in this case it is “evident” that the cabin crew and the pilots do not perform the same job.
Furthermore, he adds that given the training necessary to practice the profession of pilot and the responsibility that entails, his work cannot be considered to have the same value as that of cabin crew, for the purposes of Community legislation.
Daily maintenance diets
The Court of Justice has thus responded to a preliminary question referred by the National Court (AN) about the case that confronts the airline and the Union of Airline Flight Attendants (‘STAVLA’)which requested the partial annulment of the collective agreement applicable to cabin crew.
The National Court pointed out that the daily maintenance allowances are not considered a salary because They do not remunerate a specific job but rather a tripso the difference in the value of the pilot and crew functions cannot be a circumstance that justifies unequal treatment with respect to the amount of the allowances, a reasoning that the CJEU supported this Friday.
