Part-time and fixed-term employees



It is unlawful to select employees for redundancy because they are part-time or fixed-term, without objective justification. As well as being potential indirect sex discrimination, it is likely to be a breach of the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 (FTERs), or the Part-time Workers Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment Regulations 2000 (PTWRs) (see Chapter 2). 


In Whiffen v Milham Ford Girls School [2001] IRLR 468, a policy of selecting temporary employees for redundancy first was indirectly sex discriminatory because women are more likely than men to hold temporary posts. More women than men also work part-time.



The FTERs require an employer to treat temporary employees “no less favourably” than equivalent permanent staff, including in relation to redundancy rights such as contractual redundancy procedures, redeployment and redundancy pay. In addition, under regulation 3(2)(c) FTER, a fixed-term employee has the right to the same chance to secure a permanent position of alternative employment as a comparable permanent employee at risk of redundancy. 


Under the PTWRs, part-time employees are entitled not to be treated less favourably in any redundancy exercise than a comparable full-time employee. The comparator must be a real person (see page 45).


Scoring employees for their ability to show flexibility, for example, as to locations, shifts or work patterns, is likely to discriminate indirectly against women, who are more likely to have caring responsibilities, and must be objectively justified (London Transport v Edwards [1997] IRLR 157). It may also discriminate against some disabled workers.