British Airways Plc v Pinaud

British Airways Plc v Pinaud

Requiring the claimant to be available for 130 days per year (53.5% of the comparator's 243 days) while paying only 50% of the comparator's salary constitutes prima facie less favourable treatment under Regulation 5(1)-(2) of the 2000 Regulations. The Employment Tribunal was correct to so find.

Parties
Appellant: British Airways PLC; Respondent (claimant): Florence Pinaud
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Part Time Workers, Less Favourable Treatment, Pro Rata Principle, Justification Defence
Employment Law Discrimination Law Part Time Workers Less Favourable Treatment Pro Rata Principle Justification Defence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

British Airways PLC

Appellant

Florence Pinaud

Respondent (claimant)

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether requiring a part-time worker to be available for work on a greater proportion of days than a full-time comparator, while paying only 50% salary, constitutes less favourable treatment under Regulation 5 of the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable) Treatment Regulations 2000.
  2. 2 Whether such treatment is justified on objective grounds.

Ratio Decidendi

Requiring the claimant to be available for 130 days per year (53.5% of the comparator's 243 days) while paying only 50% of the comparator's salary constitutes prima facie less favourable treatment under Regulation 5(1)-(2) of the 2000 Regulations. The Employment Tribunal was correct to so find.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; finding of less favourable treatment upheld; issue of justification and remedy remitted to Employment Tribunal for re-hearing.