Mr A Tidd v Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service — 2025

At a liability-only hearing, the Tribunal considered four allegations of less favourable treatment under the Part-time Workers and Fixed Term Employees Regulations arising from the claimant's on-call and fixed-term work within Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service. It accepted that the respondent used different recruitment processes for on-call and wholetime roles, including Assessment Centres for wholetime leadership posts from 2020, and emphasised that the legal question was whether the claimant was treated less favourably than an actual comparator for a reason tied to part-time or fixed-term status, not whether the process felt unfair.

On the September 2021 fitness-test allegation, the Tribunal found that the claimant had not shown less favourable treatment compared with Adrian Atkinson. It held that the respondent applied the same valid-fitness requirement to all applicants, that the claimant's earlier station-manager test did not meet that requirement, and that Mr Atkinson had a current fitness assessment because of his own wholetime role. The Tribunal concluded that the reason for the claimant having to take the test was the respondent's fitness policy and the absence of a compliant assessment, not his part-time or fixed-term status; it would also in any event have been objectively justified.

For the December 2021 email about wholetime Watch Manager vacancies, the Tribunal found that the claimant had not passed the relevant Assessment Centre and was therefore outside the cohort that received the email. It accepted the respondent's case that the cohort had been selected by reference to Assessment Centre success and leadership assessment, and it noted that the claimant was only part-time at that date and held no fixed-term role. For the August 2022 Crownhill Watch Manager exercise, the Tribunal found no evidence that Adrian Atkinson was the relevant lateral-transfer comparator, and it accepted that the claimant was excluded because he was not in the substantive wholetime Watch Manager pool and had not completed an Assessment Centre. The Tribunal further found that the respondent's lateral-transfer process pursued a resource and cost-saving aim and would have been proportionate.

On the September 2022 demotion allegation, the Tribunal accepted that the claimant had in substance been bumped from his substantive on-call Watch Manager role back to On-Call Crew Manager when Mr Watts returned from unpaid leave. It held, however, that Mr Watts was not an apt full-time comparator for a Part-time Workers Regulations claim, and that the reason for the move was the respondent's mistaken belief about the claimant's status rather than his part-time status. All complaints were therefore dismissed and no award was made.