The recent case of Augustine v Data Cars Ltd poses the question a provision applicable to both full and part-time workers could amount to detriment of the part-time worker.
In Augustine v Data Cars, the claimant, a part time taxi driver was required to pay a flat weekly circuit fee of £148 which gave drivers access to the respondent’s database. However, whilst the claimant was part-time, the fee remained the same as those of his full-time comparators.
The claimant was unsuccessful in the first instance but the EAT upheld his appeal in part, determining that he was paying a higher circuit fee than his full-time comparator when it was considered as a proportion of his hours worked.
However, on appeal the Employment Appeal Tribunal, on considering the judgment of the Scottish case of McMenemy v Capita Business Services, ultimately dismissed Mr Augustine’s case. In McMenemy, the key factor considered was if the detriment described by the claimant was solely due to the claimant being part-time worker. The EAT in Augustine therefore focused upon the “sole reason” test and upheld the Tribunal’s decision on the grounds that the charging of the circuit fee was not implemented solely due to the claimant being a part-time worker.
The EAT’s decision in this case is an interesting one in potentially narrowing the interpretation of the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. It bears the question of whether the requirement for less favourable treatment to be solely attributable to a worker’s part-time status will in future be appealed to the Court of Appeal