Claimant v Romero Catholic Academy Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant alleged he was treated less favourably as a part-time worker under the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, claiming he performed 100% of his Teaching and Learning Responsibility (TLR) duties while receiving only 60% of the TLR payment. The tribunal found the claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof. There was no evidence of how much time he spent on TLR duties when full-time, no evidence he worked on TLR on non-working days as a part-time worker, and evidence showed reallocation of Food Technology responsibilities, loss of line management duties, and loss of Year 9 curriculum responsibilities. Most activities the claimant cited were classroom teaching duties, not TLR. The tribunal concluded there was no less favourable treatment.
Facts
The claimant, a Lead Teacher in Design and Technology, reduced his hours to 60% of full-time following a flexible working request. His Teaching and Learning Responsibility (TLR) payment reduced proportionately to 60%. He claimed he continued performing 100% of his TLR duties while receiving only 60% payment. The respondent maintained that his TLR duties had also reduced proportionately, including loss of Food Technology responsibilities, line management duties, and Year 9 curriculum responsibilities. The claimant relied on himself in his previous full-time role as his comparator.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claim, finding the claimant failed to prove less favourable treatment. He provided no evidence of how much time he spent on TLR duties when full-time, making comparison impossible. Most activities he claimed as TLR were actually classroom teaching duties. Evidence showed his TLR duties had reduced (reallocation of Food Technology, no line management, no Year 9 curriculum work), and he provided minimal evidence of TLR work on non-working days. The pro rata principle had not been breached.
Practical note
A part-time worker claiming less favourable treatment must provide concrete evidence of their full-time workload to establish a valid comparison under the pro rata principle; without such baseline evidence, the claim will fail regardless of the amount of part-time work performed.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2411813/2023
- Decision date
- 3 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Lead Teacher within Design and Technology Department
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister