Potential Part Time Discrimination

TheBlueReptile · 10 May 2018 at 12:26PM

This isn't a huge deal, I'm more interested in sorting this from the perspective of my own understanding of the situation.

My employer recently issued some new procedures in the form of an employee handbook. One of the procedures was to change how the company deal with pass-out requests. A pass-out at my workplace is essentially a request to be absent from work for a few hours and to work that time back at another date by finishing later, taking less dinner break etc.

Previously all employees could put in a request, and the pass-out would be accepted or denied based on individual considerations. The change they've made to this is as follows: "there is a maximum of 6 pass-outs in the year for staff working 34 hours or above and for staff working below 34 hours there is a maximum of 3 pass-outs in a year"

All employees who are full time at this company work 7 hours a day, 35 hours a week. I am part-time, working 28 hours a week, 4 days a week. It's my understanding that employers have to provide the same treatment for all employees, offering pro-rata treatment to part-time employees were applicable. So for example pro-rata I should receive 4.8 pass-outs a year (6 passouts divided by 5 days full time times 4 days part time)

Gov.uk states that employers can treat part-time employees less favorably as long as there is objective justification. I asked my employer for objective justification and they responded with "Pass-outs are generally used for doctors appointments, for which part-time employees have more opportunity to book outside of work and therefore don't need as many pass-outs". However, it's my understanding again that this objective justification has to be a business reason, rather than the personal circumstances of an employee.

My employer has also claimed that because pass-outs are not legally mandatory, nor considered a 'benefit', that they are exempt from any rules involving treatment of part-time employees.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Browntoa · 10 May 2018 at 12:36PM

Pass outs are a discretionary thing , an employer is under no obligation to give you time off for doctors appointments etc

Red-Squirrel_2 · 10 May 2018 at 12:52PM

To be fair, that explanation makes a lot of sense. I'd just drop it.

Its not like the full timers get more time off, they still have to work it back.

TheBlueReptile · 10 May 2018 at 1:13PM

Oh absolutely, I've expressed that I'm grateful to them as I appreciate the extra flexibility. Its more a case of if I'm only working 20% less time then I don't see the logic in being given 50% less passout opportunity than someone who is full-time.

Thanks for the replies thus far guys. I doubt I'll be taking it any further with my employer but wanted the clarification myself as I'm struggling to grasp where the protection of part time employment begins and ends.

Ozzuk · 10 May 2018 at 1:32PM

It's probably a line in the sand- perhaps you have part timers working different hours to you so they come up with a set figure rather than work it different for everyone.

jobbingmusician · 10 May 2018 at 3:06PM

I agree with you, OP - I think everything should be proportional for PT workers. Have you put it to your HR department that applying a rule like this is discriminatory?

anamenottaken · 10 May 2018 at 8:44PM

Interesting to see how 4.8 pass-outs would be taken.

I know it would have to be increased to 5 but I would also expect that the pass-outs section of the handbook is described as a non-contractual part (handbooks can contain both contractual and non-contractual information).

KiKi · 10 May 2018 at 10:40PM

TheBlueReptile wrote: »

"Pass-outs are generally used for doctors appointments, for which part-time employees have more opportunity to book outside of work and therefore don't need as many pass-outs". However, it's my understanding again that this objective justification has to be a business reason, rather than the personal circumstances of an employee.

I agree with you. It doesn't matter what it's used for - it's essentially a request for flexible working. The fact that part timers have more ability to do stuff on one / two days a week is irrelevant.

My employer has also claimed that because pass-outs are not legally mandatory, nor considered a 'benefit', that they are exempt from any rules involving treatment of part-time employees.

I disagree with this. Of course they are a benefit - because they are not legally required. They are a benefit your organisation offers. If it's not a benefit, then it's a term of your employment - and organisation's can't discriminate on that basis, either. Either way, I'd say it's, in effect, a form of flexible working (hence you having to apply for it before, now they're just allowing it full stop) and they should pro rata that.

I strongly suspect the reason they've done what they've done is because they don't want the admin hassle.

theoretica · 10 May 2018 at 11:11PM

If there are any staff who only work one or two days a week or equivalent hours they are being advantaged by this, getting more than they would pro-rata, which increases the interest of the question.

Takeaway_Addict · 11 May 2018 at 9:36AM

KiKi wrote: »

I strongly suspect the reason they've done what they've done is because they don't want the admin hassle.

Yup and if someone pushes it they'll either accept it or force staff to take holidays and make it quite clear who piped up and ruined it for everyone...

TheBlueReptile · 11 May 2018 at 12:16PM

Thanks all, I'll reply to a few points below. I'm swinging between the opinions that this isn't worth my time, and that this is unfair treatment and so needs to be stood up against. My conversations with my employer thus far have shown that they simply don't care whether I disagree with the new application of pass-outs or not, that it's a "managerial desicion" and basically won't budge unless I can present them with viable proof from an organisation with authority in the matter that this is discriminatory behavior.

Honestly, the amount of pass-outs I receive makes no difference to me, but the more I think about it the more the principal behind the matter irks me. I have other concerns about the general attitude to part time workers in this company but this is the first time anything has been down in writing that I can physically point to.

theoretica wrote:

If there are any staff who only work one or two days a week or equivalent hours they are being advantaged by this, getting more than they would pro-rata, which increases the interest of the question.

Interestingly, as far as I'm aware, there's only one. The directors ex-wife and stakeholder in the company

jobbingmusician wrote:

Have you put it to your HR department that applying a rule like this is discriminatory?

I have asked their opinion on the law regarding this and they have insisted that they have objrctive justification (the whole 'part timers can book doctors outside work), and the laws regarding pro-rata treatment of part time workers is only valid for holiday entitlement, which I know is wrong, but I'm unsure if it would apply to something like passouts.

Kiki wrote:

Of course they are a benefit - because they are not legally required. They are a benefit your organisation offers. If it's not a benefit, then it's a term of your employment

I raised this with them at the time and they have reportedly spoken to ACAS who confirmed that it does not count as a benefit.

Browntoa wrote:

Pass outs are a discretionary thing , an employer is under no obligation to give you time off for doctors appointments etc

Pass-outs are not specifically for doctors appointments. We can use them at our discretion. Things such as your kid is doing a school play in the afternoon you'd like to catch. The doctors is simply the example they gave, and even then they've made it clear that they don't have to grant your request.

Potential Part Time Discrimination

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free