Part-time workers have protection from discrimination in the form of the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. Workers are protected against less favourable treatment in relation to their terms of employment and/or being subject to any other detriment on the ground of their part-time status, unless that treatment can be justified by the employer.
Here are the main rights set out in the Regulations:
- Equal Treatment: Part-time workers must receive the same treatment as full-time workers, including pay rates, benefits, and leave entitlements, unless there is a justified reason for the difference.
- Pro Rata Basis: Benefits such as holiday entitlement and pensions should be calculated on a pro rata basis, meaning part-time workers should receive a proportionate amount compared to full-time workers.
- Right to Request Full-Time Work: Part-time workers have the right to request a move to full-time work if a suitable position becomes available.
- Protection from Discrimination: It is illegal to treat part-time workers less favourably solely because of their part-time status, ensuring they are protected from unfair treatment and discrimination.
- Access to Training and Promotion: Part-time workers should have the same access to training opportunities and career progression as full-time workers.
- Statistically speaking, women and those with disabilities are more likely to work part-time than other people. Employers should bear in mind the separate and distinct risk of sex or disability discrimination claims in circumstances where part-time workers are treated less favourably than their full-time colleagues.
The EAT recently looked at how the test of whether treatment is ‘on the ground of’ part-time status should operate. It held that discrimination against part-time workers only occurs where the less favourable treatment is solely because of part-time status.
In Augustine v Data Cars, a part-time taxi driver challenged the requirement to pay a weekly fee of £148 to Data Cars, which was a standard charge for all drivers irrespective of hours worked. He claimed this constituted discrimination against part-time workers. The tribunal rejected his claim, finding that the Claimant had not established that he was treated less favourably than full-time drivers, who paid the same fee. It was determined that the fee was not on the sole ground of his part-time status, so his claim would still have failed.
The EAT disagreed with the tribunal but found that the outcome remained correct.
- By charging a flat fee to all employees, the Respondent was not treating part-time and full-time employees in the same way. The Claimant, being part-time, was receiving proportionately less pay than his full-time comparator, once the fee had been deducted from take-home pay.
- Considering whether this less favourable treatment was because of the Claimant being part-time, the EAT found that, although its own view was that the correct test should be whether part-time status was an effective cause of the treatment (rather than the sole cause), it was bound by the judgment of the Scottish Court of Session in McMenemy v Capita Business Services. This case held that less favourable treatment would only be ‘on the ground’ of being a part-time worker if the treatment was solely for that reason. The tribunal had therefore been correct to apply the ‘sole reason’ test (although it had made an error in the way it had done so). The EAT found this error did not alter the outcome: the claim should fail.