(1) David Balogun (2) Adigun Sunmola (3) Betty Olatise (4) Raphael Ifezulike (5) Yakubu Sani v London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham Council — 2021

The claimants brought complaints under the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, alleging that the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Council treated them less favourably as part-time weekend workers in relation to pay for weekend work. The Tribunal first held that Mr Sharif was not an appropriate comparator because he was a supervisor with additional responsibilities and was not engaged in the same or broadly similar work as the claimants.

The Tribunal accepted that Mssrs Adegoke and Adekunle were comparators in broadly similar work, but found no less favourable treatment. It found that the Council required both part-time and full-time employees to work 36 hours before enhanced weekend rates were payable, and that the claimants had never worked more than 36 hours in a week so as to qualify for overtime at those rates. The Tribunal accepted the Council's evidence that the enhanced weekend overtime codes were available to weekend staff when they had worked the qualifying hours.

The claimants argued that full-time comparators were paid enhanced rates even when they had been on annual leave or had taken time off in lieu during the relevant week. The Tribunal did not accept that annual leave should be excluded from the 36-hour calculation for overtime purposes, and found that the Council's practice of treating annual leave and time off in lieu as part of the working week applied to full-time and part-time employees alike. It also found that this practice was standard and objectively justified.

The Tribunal rejected the argument that an email from Mary Lamont on 4 December 2018 established a continuing disadvantage to the claimants, finding that it was superseded by Fiona Darby's email of 28 June 2019. It further found that, insofar as the claimants complained about contractual terms, any such complaint was out of time when presented on 15 May 2020. The Tribunal concluded that the respondents had not treated the claimants less favourably than comparable full-time workers and dismissed the claims.