Understanding the appliance of the Half-time Employees Laws

Introduction

The Employment Attraction Tribunal (EAT) has just lately confirmed that, to succeed with a declare below the Half-time Employees Laws, the claimant’s part-time standing have to be the “sole purpose” for the much less beneficial remedy. The Court docket of Attraction has simply confirmed the “sole purpose” causation take a look at in a separate case however granted go away to attraction to the Supreme Court docket. Within the meantime, we offer a sensible reminder of how the Half-time Employees Laws function in observe.

Case overview

In Mireku v. London Underground Ltd, Mr Mireku claimed that he was handled much less favourably in relation to the cancellation of additional time in comparison with full-time employees. Mr Mireku began a job share association with a colleague in January 2022, below which they every labored two weeks “on” and two weeks “off”. Whereas off sick in June 2022, Mr Mireku instructed his supervisor that he didn’t wish to return to the Paddington space and his supervisor made preparations for him to work from Whitechapel as an alternative. Though he labored in Whitechapel, his employment remained below the Paddington finances. At numerous factors after the job share association began, Mr Mireku requested to do marketed additional time shifts however managers both instructed Mr Mireku that he couldn’t work additional time throughout his “off” weeks or cancelled additional time for which he had signed up. The Paddington administration additionally restricted the quantity of additional time Mr Mireku may full (in precept) as a result of he remained below that space’s finances. In November 2022, after being moved to Edgware Highway and Euston Sq., Mr Mireku was not added to the additional time mailing listing for these places, staying as an alternative on the Paddington listing.

The appellant argued that these actions associated to additional time have been detriments as a result of his part-time standing, in breach of the Half-time Employees (Prevention of Much less Beneficial Therapy) Laws 2000 (the Laws).

Employment Tribunal findings and Employment Attraction Tribunal judgment

The Employment Tribunal (ET) discovered that the cancellation of Mr Mireku’s additional time was brought on by confusion over his work preparations, not his part-time standing. In consequence, it dismissed his claims.

The EAT rejected Mr Mireku’s attraction on the grounds that the earlier case regulation required {that a} claimant’s part-time standing have to be the only purpose for the much less beneficial remedy about which they’re complaining. We just lately wrote about the latest case to verify this level and you may learn extra about that case (Augustine) right here.  

The EAT highlighted that Mr Mireku’s case would have failed, no matter whether or not his part-time standing needed to be the “sole purpose” for the much less beneficial remedy or the “efficient and predominant trigger”. This was as a result of the comparators to which he referred weren’t comparable full-time employees, which is a mandatory situation below the Laws.

The Court docket of Attraction just lately heard an attraction in Augustine and its judgment confirms the “sole purpose” causation take a look at, a minimum of for now. The Court docket of Attraction has granted go away to attraction to the Supreme Court docket as a result of earlier conflicting authorities on this query.

Key components for a declare below the Laws

This case is a helpful reminder of among the elementary ideas that apply within the Laws:

• The Laws shield part-time employees from being handled much less favourably than comparable full-time employees.
• The comparator have to be a full-time worker on the identical kind of contract because the part-time employee, doing the identical or broadly comparable work, usually on the similar institution.
• The Laws don’t enable for hypothetical comparators (that are permissible in discrimination claims below the Equality Act 2010).
• The Laws cowl much less beneficial remedy within the phrases of the part-time employee’s contract and being subjected to a detriment by the employer.
• As we’ve simply explored, a minimum of pending a judgment from the Supreme Court docket in Augustine, the claimant’s part-time standing have to be the only purpose for the much less beneficial remedy.
• An employer won’t be responsible for the much less beneficial remedy if they will present that it was objectively justified.
• Until it’s inappropriate to take action, the professional rata precept have to be utilized in figuring out whether or not an employer has handled a part-time employee much less favourably. Which means an employer should give part-time employees a minimum of a professional rata entitlement to pay, holidays and different advantages.

Preserve a watch out for our replace on the Court docket of Attraction’s judgment in Augustine and, in the end, any attraction in that case to the Supreme Court docket. Within the meantime, you might want to audit the phrases and circumstances on which you interact part-time employees. You probably have any doubts over whether or not these phrases adjust to the Laws, please get in contact along with your typical Dentons contact for recommendation.