The EAT has held, in Roddis v Sheffield Hallam University, that an employee on a zero hour contract can compare himself to a full-time employee for the purposes of pursuing a claim under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (the Regulations).
The Regulations provide protection for part-time workers against less favourable treatment on the ground of their part-time status. To bring a claim a under the Regulations, the claimant must identify a full-time worker who is engaged by the same employer, employed under the same type of contract, engaged in the same (or broadly similar) work (having regard to qualifications, skills and experience where relevant) and working at the same establishment (or, where there is no such person, working or based at a different establishment).
The Tribunal, at first instance, struck out the claimant’s claim under the Regulations on the basis that the claimant was not working under the ‘same type’ of contract as the full-time employee. However, the EAT disagreed stating that the only difference between the contracts was the hours worked and upholding the Tribunal’s finding would defeat the purpose of the Regulations.
Employers need to be mindful of this case when deciding how to treat different types of employees. If the only difference between them is the hours they work then the Regulations are likely to apply.