The Claimant brought a claim under Regulation 5 of the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations, 2000 (‘the Regulations’). His claim was that he, as a part-time worker, he did not receive a paid break of 15 minutes during certain shifts worked by him for the Respondent. He sought to compare himself with a full-time worker who did receive such breaks. The Tribunal found that his claim of less favourable treatment had been established and awarded him compensation of pounds 965. On an appeal by the Respondent:
Held: The Tribunal had erred in concluding that the difference in treatment between the Claimant and the full time comparator was ‘on the ground’ of the Claimant’s part-time status. It was an agreed fact before the Tribunal that whether or not a shift included a break depended on the length of the shift in question. The Tribunal had made further findings in fact which were consistent with that agreed position. The Tribunal had made no finding in fact of any causal link between shift length and part-time status.
In these circumstances, there was no basis in law on which the Tribunal could properly have come to the view that the difference in treatment between the Claimant and his full time comparator was ‘on the ground’ that he was a part-time worker, far less that his part-time status was the sole ground for such difference in treatment (per McMenemy v. Capita Business Services Limited [2007] IRLR 400). The agreed and proven facts were wholly destructive of any such conclusion.
Appeal allowed and Order substituted dismissing the claim.
[2021] UKEAT 0003 – 21 – 2708, [2021] UKEAT 0093 – 21 – 2708
Bailii, Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.667955