Matthews & Ors v Kent & Medway Towns Fire Authority & Ors [2003] UKEAT 0968_02_0708 (7 August 2003)

Matthews & Ors v Kent & Medway Towns Fire Authority & Ors [2003] UKEAT 0968_02_0708 (7 August 2003)

Retained fire fighters are employed under a different type of contract from whole-time fire fighters within the meaning of Regulation 2(3) of the PTWR, and are not engaged in the same or broadly similar work. Therefore, their claims under the Regulations fail. Even if the contracts were of the same type and the work broadly similar, the correct approach to less favourable treatment is a term-by-term comparison, and causation is established by the 'but for' test. Objective justification must be shown for each less favourable term, not by reference to the overall package.

Citation
[2003] UKEAT 0968_02_0708
Parties
Appellant: Retained Fire Fighters (test Applicants); First Respondent: Kent & Medway Towns Fire Authority; Second Respondent: Royal Berkshire Fire & Rescue Authority; Third Respondent: Secretary of State (maker and administrator of the Fireman's Pension Scheme)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
07 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Part Time Workers, Less Favourable Treatment, Employment Contracts, Comparators, Pension Schemes, Objective Justification
Employment Law Labour Law Discrimination Law Part Time Workers Less Favourable Treatment Employment Contracts Comparators Pension Schemes +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Retained Fire Fighters (test Applicants)

Appellant

Kent & Medway Towns Fire Authority

First Respondent

Royal Berkshire Fire & Rescue Authority

Second Respondent

Secretary of State (maker and administrator of the Fireman's Pension Scheme)

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether retained fire fighters are employed under the same type of contract as whole-time fire fighters for the purposes of the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
  2. 2 Whether retained and whole-time fire fighters are engaged in the same or broadly similar work under the Regulations
  3. 3 Whether retained fire fighters have been treated less favourably than whole-time fire fighters

Ratio Decidendi

Retained fire fighters are employed under a different type of contract from whole-time fire fighters within the meaning of Regulation 2(3) of the PTWR, and are not engaged in the same or broadly similar work. Therefore, their claims under the Regulations fail. Even if the contracts were of the same type and the work broadly similar, the correct approach to less favourable treatment is a term-by-term comparison, and causation is established by the 'but for' test. Objective justification must be shown for each less favourable term, not by reference to the overall package.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Claims of retained fire fighters under the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 are unsuccessful and dismissed
  • No order for changes to pension scheme or terms and conditions