Differences in contributions between European agricultural workers employed on a fixed-term and permanent basis, the Court of Justice of the European Union

In its judgment dated May 8th, 2025, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled that a national provision allowing different treatment (without objective justification) between agricultural workers employed on a fixed-term basis and those employed on a permanent basis regarding their remuneration and social security contributions is contrary to European provisions (more specifically, clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term contracts of March 18^th, 1999, annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC).

The case examined by the Court of Justice originated from an appeal lodged by a number of Italian companies against payment orders issued to them by INPS (the Italian National Social Security Institute) for the payment of allegedly missing social security contributions relating to agricultural workers employed on fixed-term contracts between 2006 and 2007. In the Institute's opinion, the amount of the corresponding contributions had been calculated on the basis of the (lower) number of hours actually worked by these employees rather than on the basis of the daily working hours provided for in the applicable NCBA (set at a flat rate of six and a half hours).

The Florence Court of Appeal upheld the INPS's arguments, noting that Section 30, paragraph 1, of the applicable CCNL identifies the working hours of agricultural workers as 39 hours per week, equal to 6.30 hours per day, and establishing that this minimum working time should also be applied to the calculation of contributions due for workers hired on a fixed-term basis, by virtue of a general principle of non-discrimination.

Following the challenge of such a decision by the involved companies, the Italian Supreme Court stated that another NCBA provision (Section 40) provides that fixed-term workers are entitled to payment for the hours actually worked during the day, which would release the remuneration and contributions of agricultural workers hired on a fixed-term basis from the flat-rate working hours identified inSection 30, thus overturning the judgment of the Court of Appeal and referring the case back to the latter.

The Florence Court of Appeal, which was again asked to rule on the matter, found that the reasoning of the Italian Supreme Court resulted in less favourable treatment for fixed-term agricultural workers than for those hired on permanent contracts. Indeed, according to the Florence judges, the two types of workers perform the same tasks and are therefore in a comparable situation. However, agricultural workers hired on a permanent basis are guaranteed a minimum daily wage (and, therefore, social security contributions), while for those hired on a fixed-term basis, the employer is free to determine the duration of the work and, therefore, the related wages and contributions.

Faced with this impasse, the Florence Court of Appeal suspended the proceedings and referred the matter to the EU Court of Justice, which ruled that the situation was incompatible with EU law – in particular, with clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term contracts of March 18, 1999, annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC – of national legislation or a collective agreement which, on the one hand, guarantees a flat-rate remuneration to agricultural workers employed on a permanent basis and, on the other hand, allows the employer to freely determine the working hours – and, therefore, the remuneration and contributions – of workers who, although performing the same tasks as the former, are employed on a fixed-term basis.

Indeed, the European Court of Justice has stated that clause 4, point 1, of the framework agreement on fixed-term contracts of March 1999 is a specific expression of the principle of non-discrimination, which requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently, unless such a treatment is objectively justified.

In the case in question, the Court of Justice ruled that: i) the positions of agricultural workers employed on fixed-term and permanent contracts were comparable; ii) there was, in fact, unequal treatment between these categories of workers; iii) there was no objective reason justifying the unequal treatment, which, on the contrary, was based "solely on the duration of the employment."

In conclusion, the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified that a difference in pay and contributions based solely on the duration of the contract cannot be considered to comply with the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in EU law, which, on the contrary, pursues the need to ensure equal treatment between fixed-term and permanent agricultural workers, thus leaving it to Italian judges and social parties to adapt the current treatment to these 'new' principles of law.