Case 4102170/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Member J McCullagh Tribunal Member D McFarlane Mr James Campbell v Forth Valley Health Board — 2020
- Case reference
- 4102170/2020
- Decision date
- 25 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Young Tribunal
- Panel members
- J McCullagh, D McFarlane
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member J McCullagh Tribunal Member D McFarlane Mr James Campbell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr James Campbell was employed by Forth Valley Health Board as a part-time phlebotomist from 2 April 2018 until 27 July 2020. His complaint concerned the period from 2 April 2018 to 15 May 2020, when he worked weekday four-hour shifts from 07:30 to 11:30 without a paid morning break, while a full-time phlebotomist working 37.5 hours per week received a 15-minute paid complimentary morning break.
The Tribunal found that the claimant was a part-time worker and that the identified full-time comparator worked under the same type of contract and was engaged in the same or broadly similar work. It also found that another part-time worker, GC, took a Friday morning break while working a four-hour shift and that the respondent was aware of this but turned a blind eye to the break being taken. That finding was based on witness evidence, audit information for 3 to 7 February 2020, and the absence of any investigation by management after the issue was raised.
The respondent argued that any difference in treatment was based on shift length rather than part-time status. The Tribunal rejected that submission as circular and considered that shift length was relevant, if at all, to objective justification rather than to whether the treatment was connected with part-time work. It also held that, because all phlebotomists were granted a 15-minute morning break from 15 May 2020 in the same circumstances, no objective justification was made out for the earlier period. The complaint under Regulation 5 was therefore well-founded.
The claimant sought compensation calculated as 15 minutes for each weekday worked from 2 April 2018 to 15 May 2020, excluding sickness, holidays and weekends, at £10.54 per hour. The respondent accepted the arithmetic but disputed that the figure was just and equitable, without proposing an alternative. The Tribunal found the calculation had a rationale and awarded £956.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part-time worker regulations | Complaint under Regulation 5 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 was found well-founded. | Upheld | — | £956 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £956
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
9 references- Regulation 2(4) Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
- Regulation 5 Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
- Regulation 5(2)(a) Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
- Regulation 5(2)(b) objective grounds
- Regulation 8(7)(b) just and equitable compensation
- Regulation 8(9) just and equitable compensation
- Carl v University of Sheffield [2009] ICR 1286
- Gibson v Scottish Ambulance Service EATS0052/04
- McMenemy v Capita Business Services Ltd [2007] IRLR 400
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.