Mrs M (Representative) For the v Respondent — 2018

This was a preliminary hearing of the Claimant's claim under the Part Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. The dispute arose from the Claimant's move from the Royal Navy to the Royal Naval Reserve and the Respondent's position that the transfer would be at the rank of Lieutenant rather than Lieutenant Commander. The Tribunal considered three preliminary issues: jurisdiction under regulation 13(2)(b), whether there was a comparator for regulation 2(4), and whether two allegations were outside regulation 13(3) because they had not been raised through the Service Redress Procedures.

On the comparator issue, the Tribunal did not strike out the claim. It held that there was a reasonable prospect of a Tribunal finding that the Claimant was a serving reservist, despite the disputed status of the transfer, and that there was also a reasonable prospect of success on the argument under regulation 3 that the Claimant could compare his position before and after the variation of his service terms. The Tribunal therefore rejected the Respondent's strike-out application on that basis.

The claim failed, however, on regulation 13(2)(b). Assuming for this purpose that the Claimant was a serving reservist, the Tribunal held that his service would consist in undertaking training obligations under sections 22 and 27 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, and that rank was not separable from that service. It found that the Armed Forces exemption therefore removed jurisdiction over the complaint. The Tribunal also said that, even if it were wrong on that point, the Claimant was exempt from call-out at the time. It accordingly struck out the claim for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal gave alternative findings on regulation 13(3). It held that the allegation concerning the OJAR 16 report was not covered by the earlier service complaint because the report post-dated that complaint, but that the allegation about Lieutenant Commander Pizii remaining the Claimant's Career Manager was essentially the same complaint as had already been raised. Those conclusions did not affect the outcome because regulation 13(2)(b) was dispositive. No remedy was awarded.