Case 4110583/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Farrell Ms L Hutchison Mr D Mitchell v Represented by: Ms A Bowman -20 Solicitor South Lanarkshire Council — 2020
- Case reference
- 4110583/2019
- Decision date
- 11 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Jones
- Panel members
- Mrs E Farrell, Ms L Hutchison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Farrell Ms L Hutchison Mr D Mitchell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Mitchell and Mr Palmer were Community Service Supervisors with South Lanarkshire Council. They brought claims under regulation 12 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and regulation 5(1) of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. The respondent withdrew its defence to the WTR claims on 8 January 2020, so the tribunal dealt with remedy on those claims. It found that neither claimant had been given the required 20-minute rest break during shifts of more than six hours, and that no arrangements were made until March 2020, when paid 20-minute breaks were introduced through SACRO cover.
For the WTR claims, the tribunal declined to award injury to feelings, applying Santos Gomes v Higher Level Care 2018 ICR 1571. It accepted that the claimants had suffered discomfort and some distress from having to supervise clients throughout their shifts without an uninterrupted break, and considered compensation just and equitable in light of the length of the default and the respondent's failure to address the issue after it was raised. It awarded Mr Mitchell £4,835.44 and Mr Palmer £2,933.16 on the WTR claims.
On the PTWR claims, the respondent accepted that both claimants were part-time workers and that their named comparators were comparable full-time workers. The tribunal held that the treatment complained of was the denial of the compensatory rest pay received by comparators, and that this had become part of the comparators' contracts by custom and practice. It upheld Mr Mitchell's claim, finding that he was the only employee working one 8-hour shift and that the sole reason for the less favourable treatment was his part-time status; the respondent's asserted rota explanation was not supported by evidence and the treatment was not objectively justified. It dismissed Mr Palmer's claim, accepting that the reason for the different treatment was the respondent's decision that new recruits would work full contractual hours while rotas were under review, rather than his part-time status. Mr Mitchell was awarded £1,841.16 under the PTWR after account was taken of the WTR compensation already awarded, making the total monetary award £9,609.76.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | Regulation 12 WTR breach admitted; award included compensation for the unpaid break equivalent and discomfort/distress. | Upheld | — | £4,835 |
| Working time regulations | Regulation 12 WTR breach admitted; award included compensation for the unpaid break equivalent and discomfort/distress. | Upheld | — | £2,933 |
| Part-time worker regulations | Claim upheld for Mr Mitchell only; tribunal found the less favourable treatment was because he was a part-time worker and was not objectively justified. Award was reduced to avoid double compensation with the WTR award. | Upheld | — | £1,841 |
| Part-time worker regulations | Claim dismissed for Mr Palmer. Tribunal accepted he was treated less favourably, but found the reason was the respondent's rota decision for new recruits, not his part-time status. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,610
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £9,610
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
15 references- Regulation 12 WTR 1998
- Regulation 30(3) and (4) WTR 1998
- just and equitable compensation
- Santos Gomes v Higher Level Care 2018 ICR 1571
- Regulation 5(1) PTWR 2000
- Regulation 5(2)(a) PTWR 2000
- Regulation 8(6) PTWR 2000
- Regulation 8(9) PTWR 2000
- McMenemy v Capita Business Services
- objective justification
- Grange v Abellio London Ltd
- Miles v Linkage Community Trust Ltd
- Truslove
- Sharma v Manchester City Council
- O'Brien v Ministry of Justice
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.