Part time discrimination?

Michael23

My workplace offers a salary for a specific job starting at £16,500 rising to £17,500 after one year service (full-time position) = 37.5 Hours a week

Full time:
£1217 ish after tax (pre pay rise)
£1273 ish after tax (after pay rise)

£56 a month better

The same job part time, £8800 rising to £9066 after one year service. = 20 Hours a week

£8800 = £733.3 Before rise
£9066 = £755.5 After rise

£22.2 Better

The pay rise as a % is larger for the full-time worker

The difference per month is £56 - £22.2 = £33.80
£33.80 x 12 month = £405 a year

Is this discrimination against a part time worker?

________________________________________________________________________________

EDIT: My sums were off.

Full time £8.43 per hour year 1, £8.95 per hour year 2.

Part time £8.43 per hour year 1, £8.68 per hour year 2.

So difference is 25p an hour, £5 a week or £267 a year.

Could a case for discrimination be made under: The Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000"

Comms69

Michael23 wrote: »

My workplace offers a salary for a specific job starting at £16,500 rising to £17,500 after one year service (full-time position) = 37.5 Hours a week

£1217 ish after tax (pre pay rise)
£1273 ish after tax (after pay rise)

£56 a month better

The same job part time, £8800 rising to £9066 after one year service. = 20 Hours a week

£8800 = £733.3 Before rise
£9066 = £755.5 After rise

£22.2 Better

The pay rise as a % is larger for the full-time worker


Is this discrimination against a part time worker?

No. This is an insignificant amount of money

Michael23

Comms69 wrote: »

No. This is an insignificant amount of money

£405.6 a year difference is insignificant?

Comms69

Michael23 wrote: »

£405.6 a year difference is insignificant?

It's nowhere near that... it's under £100

Les79

Comms69 wrote: »

No. This is an insignificant amount of money

No what? If the numbers are correct then it could well be discrimination under "The Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000"


The case I most often find associated with this one is British Airways (“BA”) v Pinaud which seems to mirror OP's situation somewhat:

https://www.curzongreen.co.uk/about-us/articles/345-part-time-workers-discrimination-british-airways-v-pinaud.html wrote:

Therefore, the requirement of availability for part-time employees amounted to 53.5% of that of BA’s full-time workers. However, those part-time workers were only paid 50% of full-time salary.

Plus, whilst one unit of £22.20 may be insignificant, it will clearly add up to a sizeable chunk of money in the long run (and indeed it may be the case that OP has already been working part time for a while now).


OP, you may be being discriminated against HOWEVER you do need to bear in mind the end goal as well (whilst Comms hasn't been completely helpful, they may a very valid point in that you do have to weigh up the pros and cons if the amount is miniscule). I'm fairly confident that the above legislation is what you need, and the case I highlighted may hold some relevance for you (working slightly more hours for the same amount of money).

Comms69

Les79 wrote: »

No what? If the numbers are correct then it could well be discrimination under "The Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000"


The case I most often find associated with this one is British Airways (“BA”) v Pinaud which seems to mirror OP's situation somewhat:


- no, because the calculation isn't clear. It's a tiny amount of money and really not worth risking your job over


Plus, whilst one unit of £22.20 may be insignificant, it will clearly add up to a sizeable chunk of money in the long run.



- not £22.2; £7.

OP, you may be being discriminated against HOWEVER you do need to bear in mind the end goal as well. I'm fairly confident that the above legislation is what you need, and the case I highlighted may hold some relevance for you (working slightly more hours for the same amount of money).

And look for a new job; over £7 a month...

Michael23

The difference per month is £56 - £22.2 = £33.80

£33.80 x 12 month = £405

Comms69

Michael23 wrote: »

The difference per month is £56 - £22.2 = £33.80

£33.80 x 12 month = £405

No. you don't get a rise of £56 a month when you work part time. Seriously? Come on!


It's simple. the increase for full time is £56 a month - to keep t you figures.


You work just over half that amount of hours, so you increase is around £30 a month, you're getting 23 - it's £7 a month.

engineer_amy

Michael23 wrote: »

The difference per month is £56 - £22.2 = £33.80

£33.80 x 12 month = £405

No you haven't pro-rated the rise.


The full timer got £1000 per annum rise for 37.5 hours per week. If the part timer was to get the equivalent pro-rated rise for 20 hours, their raise should be 1000/37.5 x 20 = 533. But they only got 266, so only about £267 short.


You also seem to be looking at the full time figures after tax, but the part time figures before tax?


Have the company given a reason for the discrepancy? I think you could struggle to claim discrimination if its not related to one of the protected characteristics.

Carrot007

The diffence is ~£267.33 a year.


Full time get a ~6% rise.
Part time get a ~3% rise.

Yes is is discrimination. But is is worth is over ~£22 a month. You can decide.

JJG

£16500 at 37.5 hours a week pro ratas to £8,800 for a 20 hour week.
£17,500 at 37.5 hours a week should pro rata to £9333.33 for a 20 hour week.

A £17,000 salary actually pro ratas to £9066.66 which looks what their calculations have been made on. If you’re sure your figures are correct maybe approach them and ask how it’s worked out.