British Airways v Pinaud (Part Time Workers) [2017] UKEAT 0291_16_0108 (01 August 2017)

British Airways v Pinaud (Part Time Workers) [2017] UKEAT 0291_16_0108 (01 August 2017)

The Employment Tribunal was correct to compare the contractual terms relating to days of availability and pay, and to find less favourable treatment under regulation 5(1)(a). However, the Tribunal erred in law by treating statistical evidence as irrelevant to justification; the practical impact of the less favourable treatment must be assessed using such evidence to determine if the treatment was proportionate and justified.

Citation
[2017] UKEAT 0291_16_0108
Parties
Appellant: British Airways plc; Respondent/claimant: Mrs Florence Pinaud
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
01 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; finding of less favourable treatment upheld; question of justification remitted for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Part Time Workers, Less Favourable Treatment, Justification, Pro Rata Principle, Comparators
Employment Law Labour Law Equality Law Part Time Workers Less Favourable Treatment Justification Pro Rata Principle Comparators

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

British Airways plc

Appellant

Mrs Florence Pinaud

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant, a part-time worker, was treated less favourably than a full-time comparator as regards a contractual term on pattern of availability for work under regulation 5(1)(a) of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law by holding statistical evidence irrelevant to the question of justification under regulation 5(2)(b)

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal was correct to compare the contractual terms relating to days of availability and pay, and to find less favourable treatment under regulation 5(1)(a). However, the Tribunal erred in law by treating statistical evidence as irrelevant to justification; the practical impact of the less favourable treatment must be assessed using such evidence to determine if the treatment was proportionate and justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; finding of less favourable treatment upheld; question of justification remitted for reconsideration.

Orders

  • Remitted to a freshly constituted Employment Tribunal to consider justification for the less favourable treatment and all aspects of the second way the Claimant put her case.