Supreme court ruling strengthens protections for part-time workers

Employers may need to reconsider how workplace policies affect part-time staff following a Supreme Court ruling that has clarified the legal test for less favourable treatment.

The UK’s highest court has upheld an appeal brought by a private hire driver, concluding that a worker does not have to prove their part-time status was the only reason they were treated less favourably. Instead, it is sufficient for their part-time status to have played an effective role in bringing about the treatment.

The decision concerns the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 and could have significant implications for employers whose pay structures, benefits, deductions or other workplace arrangements affect part-time and full-time employees differently.

The private hire driver averaged a 34.8 hour working week. Drivers were required to pay a fixed weekly fee of £148 for access to the company’s booking system. The amount was the same regardless of the number of hours a driver worked.

The claimant argued that this placed him at a disadvantage as a part-time worker because, when calculated according to hours worked, the charge represented a greater cost for him than for comparable full-time drivers. His original employment tribunal claim was unsuccessful.

He subsequently appealed. Both the Employment Appeal Tribunal and a majority of the Court of Appeal rejected his case. The Supreme Court has now unanimously allowed his appeal.

Its judgment establishes that part-time status does not need to be the exclusive reason behind less favourable treatment. The relevant question is whether that status was an effective cause of the treatment. Requiring part-time status to be the sole cause, the court concluded, could produce unreasonable results and create unnecessary uncertainty.

The ruling therefore potentially makes it easier for part-time workers to establish that they have been treated less favourably under the regulations.

This judgment should prompt organisations to examine arrangements that apply equally on paper but may have a disproportionate effect on people who work fewer hours. Decisions concerning matters such as bonuses, overtime, promotion opportunities and holiday arrangements could create legal difficulties where an employee’s part-time status influences how they are treated.

The decision may also be relevant where part-time employees are required to meet the same financial or other obligations as full-time colleagues despite working fewer hours. Because the ruling comes from the Supreme Court, its interpretation of the legislation is binding on lower courts considering future cases.

Employers should seek to ensure comparable workers are treated consistently and fairly, with particular attention paid to the principle of pro-rating arrangements where appropriate.

Fixed payments, deductions or benefits that apply identically irrespective of working hours may deserve particular scrutiny. Although such arrangements can appear equal, their practical effect can be more significant for someone working part time.

Employers should also consider whether policies that disadvantage part-time staff can be objectively justified as a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate business objective. Recording the reasoning behind such decisions may become increasingly important where an employer needs to defend an arrangement.

Employers with significant numbers of part-time staff may therefore want to review pay arrangements, benefits, deductions and other employment practices to identify situations in which apparently uniform rules have a greater impact on people working reduced hours.  For further support on this subject contact 121 HR Solutions on 0800 9995 121.