Topics

Part-time work

New and updated

  • Date:
    1 June 1994
    Type:
    Law reports

    Seven-hour worker can bring unfair dismissal claim

    In Warren v Wylie and Wylie a Southampton industrial tribunal (Chair: M A Rich) has interpreted the House of Lords' decision in the part-time workers judicial review case to mean that the qualifying threshold of eight hours' service per week to bring an unfair dismissal complaint in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 is contrary to Article 119 of the EEC Treaty.

  • Date:
    1 January 1993
    Type:
    Law reports

    Judicial review of qualifying periods for part-timers fails

    In R v Secretary of State for Employment ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission (6 November 1992) EOR47C, the Court of Appeal, by a majority decision, holds that the EOC was not entitled to challenge by way of judicial review the statutory qualifying thresholds in respect of unfair dismissal and redundancy payments on grounds that the longer qualifying periods for part-time workers indirectly discriminate against women contrary to EEC law.

  • Date:
    1 September 1992
    Type:
    Law reports

    Equal paid time off for part-timers under Article 119

    In Arbeiterwohlfahrt der Stadt Berlin eV v Bötel (4 June 1992) EOR45A, the European Court of Justice rules that statutory time-off provisions which fail to compensate part-time workers for time spent on industrial relations training outside their normal working hours indirectly discriminate against women and are contrary to Article 119 of the EEC Treaty unless objectively justified by the Member States.

  • Date:
    1 November 1990
    Type:
    Law reports

    Bundesangestelltentarifvertrag discriminatory

    In Kowalska v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (27 June 1990) EOR34B, the European Court of Justice holds that the exclusion of part-time workers from the right to severance payments under the collective agreement for the West German public services contravenes Article 119 of the EEC Treaty unless the employer shows that the provision is justified by objective factors.

  • Date:
    1 November 1989
    Type:
    Law reports

    No interest on sex discrimination compensation

    In Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority v Marshall (No 2) (18 September 1989) EOR28A, the EAT holds that an industrial tribunal is not entitled to include a sum representing interest as part of an award of compensation for unlawful sex discrimination.

  • Date:
    1 September 1988
    Type:
    Law reports

    Pool for comparison should be restricted to qualified applicants

    In Pearse v City of Bradford Metropolitan Council (15.3.88) EOR21H, the EAT holds that the appropriate pool for comparison for the purpose of determining whether an eligibility requirement for a job has a disproportionate impact should be composed of those who are otherwise qualified for the post.

  • Date:
    1 July 1987
    Type:
    Law reports

    5-day part-time working justifiable requirement for health visitor

    In Greater Glasgow Health Board v Carey (23.2.87) EOR14D, the EAT overrules an industrial tribunal's finding that a requirement that a health visitor work part-time over five days rather than work half a week was unjustifiable indirect discrimination against women.

  • Date:
    1 September 1986
    Type:
    Law reports

    Exclusion of part-time workers from occupational pension schemes may contravene Article 119

    In Bilka-Kaufhaus v Weber von Hartz (13.5.86) EOR9A, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) holds that the exclusion of part-time workers from occupational pension schemes contravenes Article 119 of the EEC Treaty if this exclusion affects significantly more women than men, unless the employer can show that the exclusion is based on objectively justified factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex.

  • Date:
    1 May 1985
    Type:
    Law reports

    Part-timers first redundancy policy held not discriminatory

    Kidd v DRG (UK) Ltd (EAT, 8.2.84) EOR1A reaches the extraordinary conclusion that a redundancy procedure where part-time workers were dismissed first did not have a disproportionate impact upon married women compared with single women or upon women compared with men.