Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Employment lawEquality, diversity and inclusionLatest NewsEmployment tribunalsRecruitment & retention

Part-timers must specify ‘appropriate’ full-time comparators when alleging unfavourable treatment

by John Charlton 21 May 2009
by John Charlton 21 May 2009

Part-time employees pursuing damages for alleged unfavourable treatment against them because of their status must identify an appropriate full-time comparator, an Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled.

In a recent judgement in Carl V University of Sheffield, the EAT said the claim “fails in the absence of a true actual full time comparator. We hold that the claimant cannot rely on a hypothetical comparator under the Part-Time Workers Regulations 2000.”

Mrs B Carl, a part-time teacher of shorthand in the Journalism Department at Sheffield University, claimed she had been treated less favourably than a named comparator, full-time lecturer Ms McClelland. Carl claimed, in the original Employment Tribunal hearing, that her comparator, McClelland, was paid for preparation time while she was not.

But the EAT pointed out that McClelland’s role – full time teacher in the sociological studies department – was not even “broadly similar” to Carl’s.

It noted that McLelland had two MAs, was preparing for a PhD, and had skills “way beyond” Carl’s. The EAT noted that Carl had a BEd and taught to A Level standard while McClelland lectured up to PhD level.

Commenting, Krishna Santra, solicitor at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin, said: “Employers can take some comfort. Unlike other discrimination legislation where the comparator may be actual or hypothetical, this case re-iterates that under the PTW regulations, the comparator has to be actual.”

She added that it means part-time claimants must identify a full-time comprator who: works for the same employer; is employed under the same sort of contract; is engaged in broadly similar work; and is working or is based at the same establishment as the part-time worker.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

“The other issue that was addressed in the above case was whether the part-time worker status should be the sole reason for the less favourable treatment. This case reiterates that the part-time status does not have to be the sole reason but must be the ‘effective and predominant cause’ of the less favourable treatment that the part-time worker complains about.”

See also Part-time status does not have to be only reason for discriminatory treatment.

John Charlton

previous post
Cutting pay to achieve equality
next post
Can M&S whistleblower’s use of Human Rights Act succeed?

You may also like

Number of Neet women rises but figures fall...

23 May 2025

Bank holidays: six things employers need to know

23 May 2025

Unions ponder strike action after public sector pay...

23 May 2025

Personnel Today Awards 2025: Three weeks left to...

23 May 2025

Sighing in frustration at colleague was discriminatory, judge...

23 May 2025

Flexible working for teachers initiative extended

23 May 2025

Fire and rehire: the relocation question

22 May 2025

Public sector workers gain pay rises of up...

22 May 2025

Six ways to kickstart conversations about team stress...

22 May 2025

UK net migration slashed by half in one...

22 May 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+