top of page
  • Writer's pictureRobert Spicer

Contracts of employment: part-time workers: comparison


Part-time workers

Categories of comparison

Case Roddis v Sheffield Hallam University (2018) Morning Star, August 17, EAT

Facts R was employed by S as a part-time lecturer. He claimed that he had been subjected to less favourable treatment than a full-time lecturer. He had to show that he was employed under the same type of contract as the full-time employee. R was employed on a zero hours contract in that his hours of work varied according to the workload of the university’s business. The full-time lecturer had a permanent contract. The ET found that the full-time worker was not an appropriate comparator because the two were not employed under the same type of contract. R appealed to the EAT.

Decision 1. The appeal was allowed.

  1. Contracts should be broadly defined. Both contracts were employment contracts. Both were permanent in that both had the protection of notice periods and had acquired statutory protection from unfair dismissal through length of service.

  2. Both workers were employed under the same type of contract for the purposes of the Part-Time Workers Regulations.


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page