London's Capital City College did not pay the claimant, named as R King, for creating two English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) courses, the tribunal heard. The employer argued that King carried out this extra work voluntarily, according to the tribunal decision document published on 25 March.
King was employed as a lecturer at Capital City College between 1986 and 2016, after which she was made redundant. She then took an early year’s teacher training course at University College London (UCL).
In September 2018 she was hired again by Capital City College as an hourly-paid lecturer under a zero-hours contract.
She made claims against her employer in 2023 for direct age discrimination, less favourable treatment of part-time workers and a breach of her employment terms.
Her claim of less favourable treatment under the Part-Time Workers Regulation 2002 was found to be successful.
King is due to be paid a sum of £30,531.58, comprised of £23,117 in basic pay, £1,370 in sick pay and more than £6,043 in employer pension contributions.
Read more: Part time work reaches post-pandemic peak
Judge Bartlett ruled that the case highlighted a “significant failure from HR”, adding that HR professionals showed a lack of communication with hourly-paid lecturers.
Chris Garner, managing director of HR consultancy firm Avensure, told HR magazine: "The judgment in this case was very scathing of the HR failings because it is the role of HR to get this right. It is also the role of HR to ensure that working practices within an organisation continue to remain compliant with the law, and to ensure that there is consistency in the treatment of all employees.
"When deviations from standard procedures do occur, it's crucial to document these exceptions meticulously, ensuring that the employee's agreement is clearly evidenced."
King’s employers argued that she created the two ESOL courses due to her interest in phonics for adults, and that she created them voluntarily.
Judge Bartlett argued against this and stated: “We do not accept that having expertise and skills to do something and having an interest in it makes it voluntary.”
HR can ensure that employers are complying with payment rules for part-time and zero-hour contract workers by firstly identifying the correct type of contract, stated Andrew Whiteaker, head of employment at law firm Boyes Turner.
He told HR magazine: “Ensure that you have identified the correct type of engagement. Zero-hours should be used where work fluctuates so consider whether fixed term or part time contracts might better fit the work to be done. Offer zero hours employees the same pay and benefits as those employees on guaranteed hours as well as training and development opportunities.
“Having a higher hourly rate for zero-hours employees is not sufficient – it is important to compare the total package being provided and to pro-rate benefits where applicable. Importantly, cost savings are not a fair reason to justify different treatment.”
Garner added: "Workplace rules and procedures, along with working practices, should be continually reviewed and monitored to ensure that they do not indirectly disadvantage certain groups of employees. Through regular monitoring and evaluation, HR leaders can create a fairer, more transparent work environment and mitigate the risk of legal disputes.
"In this case, instead of assuming that the work would be done on a voluntary basis, the employer should have agreed how much work was likely to be involved and agreed an appropriate remuneration for the work, ensuring that whatever was agreed was in line with established practice and certainly equivalent to that which would be offered to full-time comparators."
Read more: Government sets tighter rules for gig economy employers
It is vital to train managers thoroughly, so that they can communicate the terms and responsibilities of employment for part-time and zero-hours contract workers, Whiteaker explained.
He said: “Train managers in the use of part-time contracts and their management responsibilities. It’s also important to be clear on what is expected and have defined policies around part-time contracts and zero-hours workers.
“Managers should take notes of meetings and make sure that they are documenting what they are asking workers/employees to do. In this case, the respondent couldn’t provide any evidence to dispute that they had asked, or agreed with the claimant, that she should produce the course documents which supported her claim.”
Relying on what a contract says about someone's duties is not enough to avoid similar claims, added Kim Wright, senior associate at law firm RPC.
Speaking to HR magazine, she said: "You must look at the reality of the situation in terms of the work they are doing, and do a comparison with full-time workers to see if the work being undertaken is broadly similar.
"HR teams should ask themselves; Are there any other staff that are doing a broadly similar role to part-time staff? What are their terms and conditions? Do these align with those of the part-time staff member? If not, what is the reason for the difference?"
