WRITTEN QUESTION P-3361/00

by Barbara Weiler (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Discrimination against mother-tongue language teachers

In Hessen, mother-tongue language teachers are generally placed in a lower category on the public pay scale for non-tenured employees than their German colleagues.

1. In the view of the Commission, are the German Länder entitled to make it a practice to place mother-tongue language teachers in a lower category than other teachers in non-tenured employment?

2. If so, would this lower categorisation still be tenable if a full teaching qualification from the country of origin were expressly required as a condition of giving mother-tongue language instruction and if, in addition, the individual teaching qualification had been recognised in an equivalence decision?

3. Does the Commission not take the view that such treatment violates the following rights:

- the right to equal treatment (in this case as regards nationality)

- the right to freedom of movement

- the right to equal pay for equal work?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2001)

The Commission wrote to the German authorities in November 2000 and again in January 2001 asking for further information on the subject of the pay and conditions of mother-tongue language teachers in the German Land of Hessen.

The German authorities have now replied and have explained that the pay of all teachers is determined by two criteria; qualifications (how many subjects the teacher is qualified to teach) and the number of subjects actually taught. As mother tongue language teachers only teach one subject they are paid less than teachers who teach two or more subjects. The difference in treatment between mother tongue language teachers and other teachers (whether of German or other nationality) is therefore based upon criteria unrelated to nationality, and as such does not appear to the Commission to be contrary to Community law.

The Honourable Member asks whether it would be acceptable to pay mother-tongue teachers at a lower rate if they were expressly required to have a full teaching qualification from their Member State of origin and if they had had that teaching qualification formally recognised by the German authorities as equivalent to a German qualification.

If a mother-tongue language teacher was fully qualified in his home Member State to teach more than one subject, then he would satisfy one of the two criteria set out by the Hessen authorities to be used for salary purposes, and would be placed on the appropriate salary scale. It appears to the Commission that the recognition of the foreign teaching qualifications of mother-tongue language teachers from other Member States does not alter the fact that they only teach one subject, and are therefore placed on a lower salary scale than teachers (of any nationality) who teach more than one subject. The Commission would point out that mother-tongue language teachers are not required to have their teaching qualifications formally recognised by the German authorities in order to teach a mother-tongue language.

For the reasons explained above, it does not appear to the Commission that the criteria used by the Hessen authorities to place mother-tongue language teachers on the salary scale discriminate on grounds of nationality. The principle of equality of remuneration between migrant workers and workers of the host Member State only applies when they are doing the same job, and it is clear that a mother-tongue language teacher teaching one subject is not doing the same job as a teacher who teaches several subjects. Finally, the Commission does not consider that the placing of mother-tongue language teachers on a lower salary scale compared to teachers of several subjects is a breach of the right to free movement because although mother-tongue language teachers are paid less than teachers who teach more than one subject they are able to teach in Germany without having their teaching qualifications formally recognised. It is therefore not at all clear, overall, whether there is any deterrent to the right of free movement.