Background:

The claimants were full-time salaried judges at various levels.  On occasion, the judges were asked to ‘sit up’ in higher roles.  They received no additional remuneration with it being regarded as part of their salaried role.  The claim was that they were part-time workers when they acted up and that they should not be treated less favourably than their full-time comparators in those higher roles.  As a result, they sought the higher rate of pay when they sat-up.

Outcome:

The Tribunal, at first instance, found that the Judges were part-time workers when they acted up.  Accordingly, the full-time comparator were those Judges who were in the higher position on a full-time basis.  Therefore, the claimants were treated less favourably as they were paid less when they took on the same role.  Additionally, the Tribunal found that there was no objective grounds justifying the difference.

The Ministry of Justice and Lord Chancellor appealed to the EAT. The EAT allowed the appeal citing that the Tribunal had erred in only focusing on the time when the Judges had ‘sat-up’ rather than looking at the totality of the claimants work.  By focusing on the sitting up aspect it was inevitable that a finding would be made that there was identifiable part-time work.  This also failed to take into account the custom when it came to salaried roles within the judiciary.  This was to be taken into account considering that the respondent stated that it was part of the full-time salaried roles that such sitting up would form part thereof.  Indeed, when it came to the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, Reg 2(2) it stated a worker who was ‘not identifiable as a full-time worker’.

The EAT found that the claimants could not be both full-time and part-time workers at the same time.  Therefore, taking into account the full-time salaried roles and the custom of the respondent it was found that the claimants could not be held to be part-time workers based upon looking at the part-time aspect alone.   There were some outstanding areas relating to fact-finding so the case was remitted to the Tribunal for determination.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

This case demonstrates an interesting examination of the meaning of a part-time worker to qualify for protection under the 2000 Regulations.   The EAT has made it clear that the position can be determined by focusing on what is alleged to be the part-time work where there are other components. Instead, the overall work undertaken by the individual must be considered and in this case it meant that the individuals could not be full-time workers and part-time workers at the same time.  It would depend on the duties expected of the full-time role as to whether various points of working in a higher role would be treated as separate and part-time as a result.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/1-ministry-of-justice-2-lord-chancellor-v-mr-r-dodds-and-others-2023-eat-31