Mr J Mireku v London Underground Limited — 2023

The claimant was employed by London Underground Limited as a Customer Service Supervisor and had entered a job-share arrangement working two weeks on and two weeks off. He complained that he was treated less favourably as a part-time worker in relation to access to overtime and inclusion on mailing lists. The respondent accepted that he was a part-time worker for the purposes of the Regulations.

The tribunal found that on 25 May 2022 the claimant was told he could not work overtime because he was job sharing, and that the cancellation of overtime for 4 June 2022 was based on a mistaken belief that job-share workers could not work overtime during their off weeks. Those matters amounted to less favourable treatment on the ground of part-time worker status, and the second was not justified, but both complaints were presented over four months out of time. The tribunal found no good reason for the delay and held it was not just and equitable to extend time.

For the later allegations, the tribunal found the relevant treatment was not because of the claimant's part-time status. It found that limits or approval requirements for overtime in September and October 2022 arose from budget arrangements, the claimant working temporarily in a different area from his budget holder, and the respondent's approach to overtime allocation. It also found that not adding him to the Edgware Road and Euston Square mailing list was not linked to part-time worker status.