Part Time Workers' Discrimination 14 September 2017
If a part-time worker works more than 50% of full-time hours, but is paid only 50% of full-time salary, is that less favourable treatment contrary to the Part-Time Workers Regulations 2000?
Yes, held the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in British Airways v Pinaud .
If statistical evidence is available, can this be disregarded?
No, the case being remitted on this second question.
Full-time crew worked a 6/3 pattern. Six days on, three days off, giving 243 available days and 122 days off each year. Part-timers worked a 14/14 pattern with ten available days required each fortnight. 50% of full-time availability (243) is 121.5 days. The part-timer had to be available for 130 days, 3.5% more. BA argued that the bidding system for work and bid choices created the anomaly but the EAT upheld that this was plainly less favourable treatment which could not be justified.
Assessing justification, the Employment Tribunal (ET) suggested increasing part-time pay to 53.5% would "cure"• the discrimination.
The EAT held that this "simple expedient"• oversimplified the matter. A freshly constituted tribunal would need to consider the impact by reviewing statistical evidence which had been disregarded by the ET in error.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin for providing this summary.
Back to Contents
Employment tribunal rules in favour of drivers in worker-status case 28 September 2017
The Central London Employment Tribunal has ruled that three drivers working for car and courier organisation Addison Lee are employed as workers rather than independent contractors.
These ‘workers’ are therefore entitled to employment rights such as the national minimum wage and holiday pay.
The claimants contended that they worked personally for Addison Lee as drivers, using branded vehicles that they had to hire through an associated organisation of Addison Lee. Employment judge Pearl agreed with the drivers, stating that by logging on to the online handheld computer that the organisation used to allocate jobs, the claimants were undertaking to accept jobs being given to them, and were therefore performing driving services.
Read the full article from Employee Benefits
Back to Contents
Failure to conduct risk assessment for breastfeeding mother 2 November 2017
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has held that failure to conduct an appropriate risk assessment for a breastfeeding employee is sex discrimination.
In the case of Otero Ramos v Servicio Galego de Saude the Claimant was a nurse working in a hospital's accident and emergency unit. She claimed sex discrimination as her employer's risk assessment for her as a breastfeeding worker had concluded, without a substantiated explanation, that her work was 'risk-free', so her request for an adjustment in her working pattern on account of breastfeeding was declined.
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Policy News Journal
cipp.org.uk
Page 87 of 516
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker