Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2015] All ER (D) 121 (Jan)
Neutral Citation: UKEAT/0239/14/LA
Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal
Judge:

Justice Lewis

Representation Rachel Crasnow and Tamar Burton (instructed by Browne Jacobson LLP) for the employees.
  Charles Bourne QC and Rachel Kamm (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the employer.
Judgment Dates: 16 January 2015

Catchwords

Employment - Discrimination - Part-time worker - Pension - Employees being fee-paid members of tribunals - Employees having no access to pension scheme, whereas salaried medical members of tribunals having such access - Employees alleging less favourable treatment - Employment tribunal determining, as preliminary issue, that work of two groups not broadly similar - Employees appealing - Whether tribunal erring - Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, .

The Case

Employment Discrimination. The employees were fee-paid members of tribunals. They were not given access to a pension scheme in respect of their service, whereas salaried regional medical members were. They brought a claim before the employment tribunal against the Ministry of Justice. On a preliminary issue, the tribunal determined that the work done by fee-paid medical members and regional medical members was not broadly similar, for the purposes of reg2(4) of the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, . The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employees' appeal, held that the employment judge had correctly approached the task of deciding whether the work of the two groups was the same or broadly similar.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.