Equal Treatment: Lords judgment means that firms should review employment terms to avoid potential legal claims

Law firms need to review the terms and conditions offered to their part-time staff to avoid potential legal claims, employment lawyers warned in light of a landmark House of Lords’ judgment on equal treatment.


Richard Arthur, a partner at trade union firm Thompsons, who brought the case on behalf of 12 retained firefighters, said the court’s ruling – that part-time workers should be entitled to the same pension and benefit rights as their full-time colleagues – could have a huge impact on employers and part-time workers, including those in law firms.


The law lords, who considered the meaning of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, held that, in future, employment tribunals should focus on the similarities and core components of the full and part-time jobs, rather than the differences. Mr Arthur explained that previously the test had been narrowly stated and allowed a minute analysis of the work done. This could then be used to show differences that enabled employers to treat part-time workers less favourably.


‘For law firms this means their part-time staff will be more likely to be able to bring claims under the regulations than they have been before,’ he suggested. ‘In essence, it means firms will have to treat part-time workers the same as full-time workers pro rata. This will apply to pay, pensions, other terms and conditions and treatment in the workplace.’


Beachcroft Wansbroughs employment partner Nick Chronias, who acted on behalf of Kent & Medway Towns Fire Authority and Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service in the case, agreed.


He said: ‘Law firms will have to look at the terms and conditions they offer their part-time staff and consider whether they treat them equally.’


Mr Chronias said firms that might have considered that a full-timer had a broader role – and was therefore not doing the same or similar work as a part-timer and so could not be a comparator – will have to look again at the situation.


He gave the example of two property lawyers, one part-time, the other full-time. ‘If the part-timer does less business development than the full-timer, but both are doing the same broad range of client work, it will be harder, but not impossible, for a firm to say the two lawyers are doing different jobs and therefore justify treating them differently.’


Mr Chronias said law firms were generally good at ensuring they pro rata benefits like holidays and sick pay, but were less good when it came to training and career progression opportunities. ‘If you look statistically at the profile of partners, the overwhelming majority are full-time. There are lots of reasons why this might be, but there could be an argument for part-timers to put the case that they should be entitled to the same career progression.’