Trøndelag District Court has recently handed down a judgment (TTRO-2024-197027) with significant implications for employers regarding the use of working time averaging agreements.
This judgment clarifies employers’ responsibilities when using average working time agreements. It highlights the importance of predictable work schedules and continuous wage obligations—even when no assignments are available. This article outlines how the court ruled in favor of an employee on an 80% contract with a staffing agency, examining whether he was entitled to wages during a period without work, despite having previously worked beyond his agreed hours.
Note: At the time of writing, the judgment has not yet become legally binding (rettskraftig). Therefore, it may become subject to appeal, and the legal position may change if the case is brought before a higher court.
Brief introduction of the case
The case concerned an employee who held an 80% position under a permanent employment contract with a staffing agency. The parties had entered into a written agreement to arrange for average working time over a 52-week period. During the initial weeks of 2024, the employee worked more than his agreed percentage. However, when new assignments failed to materialize later that winter, the employer informed the employee that he would have to take unpaid time off. Shortly thereafter, the employment was terminated due to downsizing.
The key legal issue was whether the employer was obliged to pay wages during the period the employee was told to stay home due to a lack of assignments—even though he had previously worked beyond 80%.
The District Courts assessment
Although there was a written agreement on working time averaging, the court held that the absence of a specific plan outlining when work and rest periods were to occur rendered the agreement insufficient. The court emphasized that working time arrangements must provide the employee with predictability, in line with the purpose and requirements of the Working Environment Act.
Importantly, the court noted that the employment contract explicitly stated the employer’s wage obligation remained in force over a 12-month period, and this could not be circumvented simply due to a lack of available work. In the absence of either a work schedule or mutual agreement on unpaid leave, the employee was entitled to receive wages in accordance with his 80% employment level.
Key takeaways: What does this mean for employers?
- Written averaging agreements must include a clear framework: The agreement should specify how working hours are to be distributed, including when longer or shorter work weeks are expected to fall.
- A detailed work schedule is required: To comply with the law, employers must prepare a schedule that aligns with the averaging agreement and provides employees with transparency and planning certainty.
- Wage liability is not suspended by lack of work alone: Unless the employee is formally laid off or has agreed to unpaid leave, the employer remains liable to pay wages during periods without assignments.
- Predictability is a legal requirement: The ruling reaffirms that the right to foreseeability in working hours and income is fundamental under Norwegian labour law.
To summarize
This case underscores the importance of clear and compliant agreements on average calculation of working hours. Employers cannot rely on past overtime or a lack of assignments to withhold wages. To minimize legal risks, working time arrangements must include predictable schedules and uphold the employee’s right to continuous salary.
If you have questions about calculation of average working hours, or other labor law matters, do not hesitate to contact us.
