Key Facts
- •The Ministry of Justice and the Lord Chancellor appealed an Employment Tribunal (ET) decision.
- •The ET upheld claims by four judges (sample representatives from a larger group) under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (PTWR).
- •The judges claimed less favourable treatment due to lower pay when acting in higher judicial roles (referred to as 'sitting up') compared to full-time office holders.
- •The ET found the judges were part-time workers, the comparison was valid, causation existed, and the treatment wasn't objectively justified.
- •The appeal focused on whether the judges were part-time workers, comparability, causation, and justification.
Legal Principles
PTWR apply to judicial office holders.
O'Brien v Ministry of Justice [2013] UKSC 6
Definition of part-time worker: not identifiable as a full-time worker, considering employer's custom and practice.
PTWR Regulations 2(1) and (2)
Comparability: work must be 'the same or broadly similar', considering similarities and differences, importance of work to the enterprise.
Matthews v Kent and Medway Towns Fire Authority [2006] UKHL 8
Causation: part-time status must be the effective and predominant cause of less favourable treatment.
Sharma v Manchester City Council [2008] ICR 623
Justification: unequal treatment must respond to a genuine need, be appropriate, and necessary; budgetary considerations alone are insufficient.
O'Brien v Ministry of Justice [2013] UKSC 6
Justification: cannot rely solely on cost savings.
Heskett v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWCA Civ 1487
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; case remitted to ET.
The ET erred in law by focusing on the alleged part-time work instead of the totality of the claimants' work, drawing an unwarranted distinction between core and non-core duties, and failing to consider the employer's custom and practice. Further errors were found in the ET's analysis of comparability, causation, and justification.