The Equality Act 2010 protects workers from being treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic, for example disability or race. It is perhaps a lesser-known feature of UK employment law that part-time workers are also protected from less favourable treatment.
Under section 5 of the Part-time Workers (Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (the Regulations), a part-time worker has the right to not be treated less favourably than a full-time worker because of their part-time status. An employer can defend claims regarding less favourable treatment of part-time workers if they can justify the treatment on objective grounds.
Unfortunately, employers can form biased and baseless views regarding part-time workers, such as part-time workers not being hard-working or dedicated to their role, which results in part-time workers being subjected to less favourable and sometimes hostile treatment. This can range from part-time workers being subjected to derogatory remarks, to not being considered for promotions and being unfairly targeted in redundancy processes.
Treating part-time workers less favourably is often linked with discrimination against protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. For example, disabled workers may need to work part-time as an adjustment for their disabilities. It is therefore not uncommon that employers who are litigated against for subjecting part-time workers to less favourable treatment, also have to defend claims for breaching the Equality Act 2010.
Clayson and ors v Ministry of Justice and anor
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered the issue of less favourable treatment against part-time workers in the case of Clayson. This case was brought by claimants who were previously part-time fee-paid recorders (a type of judge) and were then appointed as full-time salaried judges after 31 March 1995. As they were appointed after 31 March 1995 they were enrolled into a new pension scheme (JUPRA), which was less favourable than the pension scheme which salaried judges appointed prior to 31 March 1995 were enrolled into. The Claimants brought claims asserting that they had been subjected to less favourable treatment because they were part-time workers prior to 31 March 1995.
The claims were dismissed by both the Employment Tribunal and the EAT. Both Tribunals found that the reason the Claimants were placed on the less favourable pension scheme was because they were appointed as full-time salaried judges after 31 March 1995, and not because they were previously part-time workers. If they had been appointed before 31 March 1995, they would have been entitled to the previous more favourable pension scheme, whether or not they had previously served part-time. All circuit judges appointed after 31 March 1995 were enrolled into the less favourable pension scheme, regardless of whether they had previously served part-time or not.
The Tribunals also held that the full-time Judges who were appointed prior to 31 March 1995 were not appropriate comparators, as the material circumstances were different. The Tribunals further held that, once the Claimants were appointed as full-time judges, the difference in treatment was no longer a difference between part-time workers and full-time workers, but between two groups of full-time workers.
This outcome serves as useful guidance for workers who are considering whether they have been treated less favourably due to their part-time status. Workers must be able to prove that the less favourable treatment was because of their part-time status. As with Equality Act claims, workers must also establish an appropriate comparator, who is not part-time but otherwise in the same material circumstances, and not subjected to the less favourable treatment.
This blog was written by Yavnik Ganguly, Solicitor at didlaw.
