Part-Time Worker Protections

The Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 prevent employers from treating part time workers less favourably than their full-time counterparts. However, over recent years there has been some uncertainty as to when the Regulations should intervene. Should the Regulations apply where the less favourable treatment is related to the worker’s part-time status, even if not the sole cause, or should the Regulations only apply where the worker’s part-time status was the sole cause of the less favourable treatment. 

Following the Court of Appeal case of Augustine v Data Cars Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 658 the Regulations should only apply where the worker’s part-time status was the sole cause of the less favourable treatment.

Facts of the Case

The Claimant worked as a part-time private hire driver. As part of their employment they paid a weekly ‘circuit fee’ of £148 to gain access to the respondent’s booking system. This fee was a flat rate fee regardless of how many hours the driver worked.

At the Employment Tribunal (ET) the Claimant argued that he had been discriminated against by the Respondent because of his part time status as the flat fee was proportionately more of his earnings as a part time driver. The Tribunal disagreed.

The Case was appealed to the Employment Appel Tribunal (EAT) who formed the opinion that the correct test should be that the correct test should be whether part-time status was an effective cause of the treatment. However the EAT felt itself bound by case law to decline the appeal.

The Case was considered by a panel of 3 judges at the Court of Appeal who upheld the ET’s conclusion again that the Claimant had not been discriminated against. Unfortunately the panel of judges also found themselves in disagreement on which test should be applied. The Court of Appeal felt that it was highly desirable for reasons of consistency to follow the Scottish Court of Session (equivalent of Court of Appeal in England & Wales) case of McMenemy v Capita Business Services [2007] IRLR 400 which confirmed the sole cause test despite the fact that the majority of judges considered that McMenemy was wrongly decided (favouring a test of ‘effective and predominant cause’ over ‘sole cause’). As a result of the issues identified, permission being granted for the matter to be considered by the Supreme Court. 

In Conclusion,

Whilst the difference between the 2 tests may seem abstract in isolation, it has the potential for a significant impact on employers who employ a mix of part time and full time workers. The current test requires that the Regulations only apply where the worker’s part-time status was the sole cause of the less favourable treatment. This is at odds with other strands of discrimination law where the discriminatory reason does not need to be the sole or even principal reason for the discrimination, it is enough that it is a contributing cause (or significant influence).  If the Supreme Court choses to amend this test to that of that the Regulations apply where the less favourable treatment is related to a worker’s part-time status, even if not the sole cause, then this will result in a greater risk to employers of claims for discrimination on the grounds of part time status.

As always, this advice is general in nature and will need to be tailored to any one particular situation. As a MILS member you have access to the MILS Legal advice line, as well as a number of industry experts for your assistance. Should you find yourself in the situation above, contact us at any stage for advice and assistance as appropriate.