Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

UK People Reward and Mobility Hub

The latest updates in employment, benefits, pensions and immigration

open menu close menu

UK People Reward and Mobility Hub

  • Home
  • Events
    • Past events
  • Who We Are
    • Meet the team
  • How we can help

Less favourable treatment of part-time/fixed-term workers

By Lorelle Doyle
September 14, 2021
  • Discrimination
  • Employee benefits
  • Employee welfare
  • Employment policies
  • Employment Status
  • Flexible working
  • Pay, benefits and bonuses
  • Tribunal claims
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

In the recent case of Forth Valley Health Board v. Campbell, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether a part-time worker was being treated less favourably than a full-time worker by not being given a 15-minute paid break when working less than a six-hour shift.  It is unlawful to treat a part-time worker less favourably than a comparable full-time worker.

Facts

In this case, the claimant was a phlebotomist who had worked for the respondent for just over two years. The claimant was a part-time employee, working on average 16 hours per week. When the claimant worked four-hour shifts on weekdays, he would not receive a paid break.  However, when he worked a six-hour shift on weekends, he would receive a 15-minute paid break. This was in line with the respondent’s practice that workers received a paid 15-minute break when they worked shifts of six hours or more. However, the claimant argued that this was unlawful as full-time employees received a paid break during all the shifts that they worked.

The Employment Tribunal (ET) decision

The ET agreed with the claimant at first instance and found that his claim of less favourable treatment had been established. In making this decision, the ET rejected the respondent’s argument that the reason for the claimant not being given a paid break was the length of the shift in question and not his status as a part-time worker.  The ET concluded that the treatment of the claimant could not be justified on objective grounds. Therefore, the claimant’s claim succeeded.

The respondent appealed this decision, claiming that the ET had incorrectly considered whether the treatment of the claimant was “on the ground” that he was a part-time worker or not. This appeal was allowed.

The EAT decision

At the EAT, the respondent argued that the ET judge had erroneously applied “but for” causation to the question of whether the detrimental treatment of the claimant was “on the ground” that he was a part-time worker. The respondent argued that, if the applicable statutory test had been applied correctly, the ET would have concluded that less favourable treatment was only established if the worker’s part-time status was the sole reason for not being given a paid 15-minute break.

The EAT agreed with the respondent and dismissed the claim. The EAT held that there was no basis in law on which the ET could properly have concluded that the less favourable treatment of the claimant was “on the ground” that he was a part-time worker. Conversely, the claimant was treated less favourably due to the length of particular shifts that he worked. This was made clear by the fact that the claimant did receive a paid 15-minute break when he worked shifts that were over six hours in length.

The impact on employers

This case, whilst being relatively straightforward in its facts, should serve as a reminder to employers that part-time and fixed-term workers should not be subjected to less favourable treatment than their full-time and permanent counterparts carrying out a largely similar role.

As demonstrated in Forth Valley Health Board v. Campbell, in order for any claim in this regard to be successful, the less favourable treatment must be as a direct result of the fixed-term/part-time status and not for any other reason. Should an employer treat an employee less favourably as a direct result of their fixed-term/part-time status, they must demonstrate that this treatment is objectively justified.

Employers should be alert that any opportunities, benefits or decisions in relation to permanent full-time staff are fully considered and applied (where possible) to fixed-term and/or part-time staff to avoid falling foul of the regulations.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Lorelle Doyle

About Lorelle Doyle

All posts

You might also like...

  • Employee benefits
  • Legislative Changes
  • National Minimum Wage
  • Pay, benefits and bonuses
  • Redundancy payments

Statutory employment changes from April 2019

As April fast approaches, employers should make sure they are ready to implement the increases to statutory pay, as well […]

By Victoria Albon
  • Discrimination

Disability – what do you know?

The Court of Appeal has handed down its decision in Donelien v. Liberata UK Ltd (see here) and provided reassurance to employers that they can rely on occupation health advisers in deciding the question of disability. However, this is subject to employers making their own enquiries also.

By Verity Buckingham
  • Atypical workers
  • Employment contracts
  • Employment Status
  • Events
  • IR35
  • Recruitment

Independent contractors and worker misclassification

By Purvis Ghani

About Dentons

Dentons is designed to be different. As the world’s largest law firm with 20,000 professionals in over 200 locations in more than 80 countries, we can help you grow, protect, operate and finance your business. Our polycentric and purpose-driven approach, together with our commitment to inclusion, diversity, equity and ESG, ensures we challenge the status quo to stay focused on what matters most to you. www.dentons.com

Dentons boilerplate image

Twitter

Categories

Dentons logo

© 2023 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site