Case 1801606/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Port, lay representative For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 1801606/2022
- Decision date
- 11 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A James
- Venue
- Sheffield
- Panel members
- Mr M Brewer, Mr D Dowse
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr R Port, lay representative For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Sheffield, before Employment Judge A James sitting with Mr M Brewer and Mr D Dowse, heard the case on 10 and 11 October 2022. It upheld the claimant's claim of less favourable treatment on the ground that he was a part-time worker under regulation 5 of the Part Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000.
The judgment records an award of compensation in the sum of £1,092.12, subject to tax and national insurance deductions, together with an additional £0.41 gross for each hour worked from 20 June 2022 onwards. No separate breakdown beyond that fixed sum and hourly amount is given in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part-time worker regulations | The tribunal upheld the claim under regulation 5 of the Part Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. It awarded compensation of £1,092.12 less tax and NI, and an additional £0.41 gross for each hour worked from 20 June 2022 onwards. | Upheld | — | £1,092 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,092
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,092
- compensatory remedy recorded
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.