The Court of Appeal has held that a worker was entilted to proceed with a claim under the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 where he claimed he was de facto performing one full-time job under two part-time contracts.
One contract was for an academic post and the other was non-academic. Mr Hudson argued that, in reality, the two jobs were one-and-the same and that the separation of contracts was an administrative convenience for the University. Since the pay for a non-academic post was lower than the pay for an academic post, he argued that the terms of employment offered to him in the non-academic post were less favourable than those of a full-time academic.
Both the employment tribunal and the Employment Appeals Tribunal had rejected his argument as having no real prospects of success. The Court of Appeal held, however, that there was a case to answer and allowed the appeal to proceed.
The Court of Appeal upheld Mr Hudson's appeal and remitted his claim to the employment tribunal. In doing so, the court held that:-
- although Mr Hudson may have being working, in reality, in a full-time job, a single full-time job did not necessarily preclude Mr Hudson from having been a part-time worker as defined in regulation 2(2) of the Part Time Workers' Regulations;
- to the extent that Mr Hudson was a part-time worker under the non-academic contract, he was being treated less favourably than full-time comparators.