Total salary during parental part-time work: (No) inclusion of the portion of pay for extra hours and overtime

Supreme Court 19 February 2026, 9 ObA 62/25w

In its recent decision on 9 ObA 62/25w, the Supreme Court (OGH) clarified that, in the case of an all-inclusive agreement concluded before 2 January 2016 (1 January 2016: entry into force of Section 2g AVRAG), remuneration during parental part-time work must be calculated pro rata from the total all-in salary if the interpretation of the contract does not yield a determinable proportion for additional hours and overtime. A subsequent allocation of the remuneration components based on the average of the overtime actually worked is not an option in such a case. The OGH therefore dismissed the appeal brought by the defendant employer.

The claimant entered into an employment contract with the defendant in 2011, which included, amongst other things, the following provision:

The aforementioned salary covers all additional hours and overtime worked during the month.

The employment contract specified neither a basic salary nor the number of additional and overtime hours covered by the lump-sum payment. In fact, between 2015 and her maternity leave in January 2023, the claimant worked between 5 and 16.78 additional and overtime hours per month. For the duration of the parental part-time period, the defendant deducted an amount for overtime and extra hours, averaging 16.5 hours per month, from the agreed all-inclusive salary.

Pursuant to Section 2 of the Austrian Remuneration Act (AVRAG), in the case of flat-rate remuneration agreements concluded after 1 January 2016, the basic wage for normal working hours must be specified in the employment contract or service note. In the absence of such a specification, the employee is entitled at least to the normal hourly wage customary for the industry and location (actual basic wage). However, as the employment contract in the present case had already been concluded in 2011, Section 2g AVRAG was not applicable (cf. Section 19(1)(34) AVRAG).

The Supreme Court therefore had to address the question of how remuneration during parental part-time work should be calculated in the case of all-in remuneration agreements concluded before 2 January 2016 which do not specify a particular amount of overtime.

In the Supreme Court’s view, the contractual agreement must first be taken as the basis. As regards the question of which proportion of an all-inclusive salary relates to normal working hours and which to overtime, the decisive factor is whether the proportion of remuneration for overtime can be determined from the contract – in particular by way of interpretation in accordance with Sections 914 et seq. of the Austrian Civil Code (ABGB). Only if such a proportion can be derived from the agreement may it be taken into account when calculating the pro rata remuneration during parental leave. If, however, the interpretation of the contract does not yield a determinable proportion of remuneration for overtime and extra hours, the remuneration during parental leave must be calculated pro rata from the total all-inclusive salary.

In this specific case, an all-inclusive salary was agreed, and both parties assumed that additional hours and overtime would be required. However, the extent of this additional work was not specified in the employment contract. Nor did the proceedings reveal that, at the time the contract was concluded, the parties had envisaged a specific – even approximate or average – number of hours of additional work or overtime, or had factored such a figure into the agreed remuneration. Against this background – the decisive factor being the time of conclusion of the contract – it was not possible to distinguish between the basic salary and the portion of remuneration attributable to overtime and extra hours, which is why the remuneration during parental part-time leave must be calculated pro rata from the total all-inclusive salary. Under Section 915(2) of the Austrian Civil Code (ABGB), ambiguous statements must be interpreted to the detriment of the party who made them.

The Supreme Court rejects a retrospective division of the remuneration components based on the average of the overtime actually worked. This would mean that only an ex-post analysis of the actual work performed would reveal which portion of remuneration was intended for overtime under the contractual agreement. Furthermore, such a proportion – particularly where the amount of overtime fluctuates significantly – would vary depending on the period under consideration.

The Supreme Court thus also concurred with the view predominantly held in the literature, according to which, where the proportion of overtime cannot be determined, a reduction of remuneration to a – subsequently determined – basic salary is impermissible.

Consequently, the following applies:

If the interpretation of the contract for an all-in salary agreement concluded before 2 January 2016 does not yield a determinable portion of remuneration for overtime and extra hours, the pro rata remuneration during parental part-time leave must be calculated from the total all-in salary; any overtime and extra hours are not deductible.

In practice, when intending to take into account the portion of remuneration for overtime and extra hours during parental leave under an employment contract concluded before 2 January 2016, it is therefore essential to ensure that the relevant portion of remuneration can be determined from the contract (for example, by specifying the basic salary and/or the number of hours of overtime and extra hours covered by a flat-rate allowance in the contract). We would be happy to advise you on this matter.

on the judgment

  10.3.2026 Mag. Ivica Jelusic