The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the claimant's part-time status does not have to be the sole reason for the less favourable treatment in order for him or her to succeed in a claim under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/1551).
In Sharma and others v Manchester City Council  IRLR 336, the EAT held that part-time status does not need to be the sole reason for less favourable treatment, as compared to that of a full-time worker, for a complaint of unlawful discrimination to succeed.
In Voss v Land Berlin C-300/06, the ECJ ruled that legislation under which overtime pay arrangements result in a part-timer being paid less overall than a comparable full-timer for the same number of hours potentially contravenes the principle of equal pay enshrined in art. 141 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that, for a claim under the part-time workers regulations to succeed, it is not necessary for part-time status to be the only reason for the less favourable treatment.
In Christie v (1) Department for Constitutional Affairs (2) Department for Work and Pensions EAT/0140/07, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that there is not a common definition of worker in European law. Therefore a part-time tribunal chair who was paid a daily fee could not claim that he was covered by the part-time workers regulations.
The materials and information included in the XpertHR service are provided for reference purposes only. They are not intended either as a substitute for professional advice or judgment or to provide legal or other advice with respect to particular circumstances. Use of the service is subject to our terms and conditions.