Claimant v Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service

The claimant alleged less favourable treatment because as a part-time and fixed-term employee he was required to take an additional fitness test when applying for a Wholetime Firefighter role in September 2021. The tribunal found no less favourable treatment: the respondent applied the same requirement to all applicants (a valid fitness test within six months conducted by a qualified Fitness Advisor). The comparator, Adrian Atkinson, had a valid test. The claimant did not. The treatment was not on the ground of part-time or fixed-term status but because the claimant did not meet the fitness test requirement. The claim failed.

The claimant alleged less favourable treatment because in December 2021 he was prevented from applying for a Wholetime Watch Manager role (Policy, Procedure & Guidance Officer) as he was not part of a closed cohort who had passed an Assessment Centre. The tribunal found that the respondent applied the same requirement (Assessment Centre) to all seeking Wholetime Watch Manager roles. The comparator, Ed Durante, had passed the Assessment Centre. The claimant had not. The treatment was not on the ground of part-time status but because he had not passed the Assessment Centre. The claim failed.

The claimant alleged less favourable treatment as a fixed-term employee in August 2022 when not allowed to apply for a permanent Wholetime Watch Manager role at Crownhill via a lateral transfer process. The tribunal found the claimant did not name an appropriate comparator and there was no evidence that the named comparator (Adrian Atkinson) was appointed by lateral move. The treatment was not on the ground of fixed-term status but because he had not passed an Assessment Centre and his substantive role was already operational (the lateral move exercise was for non-operational staff). The claim failed.

The claimant alleged less favourable treatment as a part-time worker in September 2022 when he was 'demoted' from his On-Call Watch Manager role to On-Call Crew Manager to accommodate Pete Watts returning from unpaid leave. The tribunal found that Pete Watts was not an appropriate comparator as his situation was very different (he was returning to a role he had held before unpaid leave). There was no less favourable treatment. Even if there had been, the treatment was not on the ground of part-time status but because the respondent mistakenly believed it could simply slot Mr Watts back into his former role. The claim failed.