Part-time worker discrimination: you can’t necessarily treat everyone the same

Treating everyone the same might sound like a generally safe approach.  Applying exactly the same rule to everyone can put part-time workers at a disadvantage.

Augustine v Data Cars Ltd

In Augustine v Data Cars Ltd, Mr Augustine was a private hire driver who worked an average of 34.8 hours a week. Data Cars charged all drivers the same weekly fee to access its booking system, however many hours they worked. Mr Augustine compared himself with a full-time driver who worked more than 90 hours a week.

Both paid exactly the same weekly fee of £148. However, because Mr Augustine worked fewer hours, the fee cost him proportionately more for each hour he worked.  This meant he took home proportionately less pay.

What does the law say?

The Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 protect part-time workers from being treated less favourably because they work part-time.

Previously, the working part-time had to be the only reason for the less favourable treatment.

The Supreme Court has now said that this is wrong. Part-time status does not have to be the only reason. It can be an important or effective reason for the treatment.

Employers can still defend a claim if they can objectively justify the treatment. Objectively justifying the treatment means showing that there is a good business reason for it and that the approach taken is appropriate and necessary.

3 Key takeaways

1. Don’t assume that a policy is fair simply because everyone is treated in exactly the same way.
2. Fixed fees, benefits, or rules about qualifying for particular entitlements could all leave part-time workers worse off because they work fewer hours.
3. Ask yourself: does this policy or benefit put part-time workers at a disadvantage because they work part-time? If it does, can we justify it?

Further reading

• 5 things you need to know about part-time workers – Hunter Law
• Part time workers’ rights – www.gov.uk