The Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 established a minimum standard of fairness for part-time workers to prevent them from being treated less favourably than comparable full-time co-workers, unless the treatment is justified on objective grounds.
A recent decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has clarified that in order to bring a claim under the Regulations, the part-time nature of the worker's status does not have to be the 'sole reason' for the discriminatory treatment and the fact that not all part-timers are treated adversely does not mean that those who are cannot take proceedings if being part-time is a reason for the adverse treatment (Shama and Others v Manchester City Council).
Miss Shama was one of a number of part-time lecturers employed by Manchester City Council with the Manchester Adult Education Service. The contracts of employment of the part-time workers varied in nature. For example, some were on a pro-rata basis - normally 50 per cent of a full-time worker's contract. Miss Shama and her co-workers were termed 'established part-time workers'. The hours they worked could be varied year on year, subject to their being given a minimum of one third of the hours they had worked in the previous year.
When the Council needed to make savings, it implemented a 'best fit' policy, whereby when work was allocated, priority was given to those lecturers with fixed contractual hours, which resulted in the hours of the established part-time staff being reduced.
Miss Shama brought a claim of less favourable treatment, arguing that the terms of her contract were unlawful because they discriminated against part-time staff and reducing her hours in accordance with her contractual terms was therefore a breach of the Regulations.
The Employment Tribunal (ET) rejected her claim. In so doing, it considered itself bound by the 2004 judgment in Gibson v The Scottish Ambulance Service. This construed the Part-Time Workers Directive, which the Regulations implement in the UK, as meaning that if the reason for the less reasonable treatment was not solely the worker's part-time status but included some other factor, the claim was bound to fail. In applying this test, the ET found that the treatment was not on the ground that the lecturers were part-time per se but because they were a particular type of part-timer. Miss Shama appealed.
The EAT allowed the appeal and dismissed the 'sole reason' test. In its view, it was inconceivable that the Directive was not intended to outlaw such treatment and in any event, when properly analysed, the discriminatory treatment in this case only occurred because the claimants were part-timers. As the difference in treatment could not be justified, it was therefore unlawful.
Employers are advised to carry out periodic reviews of the contract terms of all categories of worker to ensure that these comply with the law. Contact Dean Parnell for advice.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
