The Supreme Court has handed down an important judgment in Augustine v Data Cars Ltd [2026] UKSC 30, clarifying how employers should approach less favourable treatment of part-time workers.
Mr Augustine, a part-time private hire driver, was charged the same fixed weekly fee as full-time drivers. Because he worked fewer hours, this meant the fee cost him more per hour worked.
The Supreme Court unanimously held that, under the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, an employee’s part-time status only needs to be an effective cause of the less favourable treatment. It does not need to be the sole reason.
What does this mean for employers?
It is a useful reminder that “we treat everyone the same” doesn’t necessarily mean everyone is being treated fairly.
Employers should consider whether policies, benefits, fees or working arrangements have a disproportionate effect on part-time employees particularly where a fixed arrangement is applied regardless of hours worked.
The Regulations already require the pro rata principle to be applied when comparing treatment, unless it would be inappropriate. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of considering how arrangements actually affect part-time workers.
Key Takeaway
When reviewing your policies and practices, don’t just ask:
“Do we treat everyone the same?”
Ask:
“Does this arrangement actually result in the same level of fairness for our full-time and part-time employees?”
Sometimes equal treatment isn’t the same as equitable treatment