Augustine v Data Cars [2024] EAT 117

Facts

In the case of Augustine v. Data Cars, the claimant worked as a taxi driver on a part-time basis. In order to comply with the Respondent's demands, he was obliged to pay a weekly circuit charge of £148. Every single driver was responsible for paying the same price, regardless of the number of hours they worked. The claimant said that he was subjected to discrimination as a part-time worker due to the fact that he was compelled to pay the entire amount each week. His claim was rejected by the tribunal because it was determined that the claimant had not shown that he was treated less favourably than a similar full-time worker. This was due to the fact that both parties were required to pay the charge.

Furthermore, the tribunal came to the conclusion that even if the claimant had been able to demonstrate that he had been subjected to less favourable treatment, the fact that he was a part-time worker was not the main reason for the charge of the circuit fee; thus, his claim would have been unsuccessful nonetheless.

Held

Despite the fact that it was in disagreement with the panel, the Employment Appeal Tribunal panel determined that the decision was nevertheless accurate:

1. The Respondent was not treating full-time and part-time workers in the same manner since they charged a flat cost to all of their different types of employees. Due to the fact that the Claimant was working part-time, he was getting a pay rate that was proportionally lower than that of his full-time comparator. This was the case after the charge was subtracted from actual pay.

2. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) came to the conclusion that, despite the fact that it was of the opinion that the correct test should be whether the part-time status of the claimant was an effective cause of the treatment (rather than the sole cause), it was bound by the decision that was handed down by the Scottish Court of Session in the case of McMenemy v. Capita Business Services concerning the question of whether or not this less favourable treatment was due to the fact that the claimant worked part-time. It was decided in this instance that a less favourable treatment would only be considered "on the ground" of being a part-time worker if the treatment was entirely for the reason that the individual was working part-time. The application of the'sole reason' test by the tribunal had thus been appropriate, notwithstanding the fact that it had made a mistake in the manner in which it had handled the situation. The EAT came to the conclusion that this inaccuracy did not change the result, with the claim being rejected.

Comment

The EAT ruled in Augustine v. Data Cars that discrimination against part-time workers may only arise in situations where less favourable treatment is purely due to the fact that the worker is part-time.