Prior to the recent case of Sharma & Others v Manchester City Council , case law suggested that in order to succeed with a claim of part-time worker discrimination, the part-time working had to be the ‘sole reason’ for the less favourable treatment. It appears this is no longer the case.
Facts
In Sharma, there were three categories of part-time workers. A particular category of part-time lecturers complained that their contractual terms were less favourable than those of full-time workers because there was a clause which allowed their hours to be varied year on year.
Employment tribunal’s findings
An employment tribunal dismissed their claim on the basis that the reason for the less favourable treatment was not their part time status; other part-timers in different categories were not treated less favourably because they didn’t have the term in their contract which allowed the Council to reduce their hours.
EAT’s findings
On appeal, the EAT disagreed. It found that the less favourable treatment was on grounds of the workers’ part-time status.
Whilst the EAT noted that the European Directive governing discrimination against part-time workers does use the word ‘solely’, in its view, that term is used to focus on the fact that the discrimination against a part-timer must not be for some other independent reason.
The EAT illustrated its logic with an example: “If an employer decided to discriminate against all part-timers over the age of 30, it could be said that there were two reasons for the discrimination; being a part-timer and being of a certain age.. . it is inconceivable that the Directive was not intended to outlaw such treatment”.
Comment
This decision effectively extends the remit for claiming part-time working discrimination. As soon as it is found that the part-timer is treated less favourably than a comparable full-timer and being part-time is one of the reasons, national legislation relating to part-time workers will be triggered.