D Jallali v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Anor

The 40-hour cap in Annex F for part-time police Inspectors must be applied on an annualised basis. Part-time Inspectors must be paid for hours actually worked up to the same annual 2,080-hour cap which applies to salaried full-time Inspectors. A week-by-week cap which requires part-time Inspectors to take managed time for excess hours prematurely is less favourable treatment under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 and indirectly discriminates against women under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010.

By contrast, Annex O fixes the number of days of annual leave by rank and length of service. It does not depend on determined or actual hours and does not treat part-time Inspectors less favourably.

The appellant was a police Inspector who worked part-time between 2010 and 2021. She challenged the Metropolitan Police’s application of Ministerial Determinations made under the Police Regulations 2003.

The Employment Tribunal dismissed her claims concerning payment for hours above 40 in a single week and accrual of annual-leave days. She appealed. The central questions were whether Annex F imposed a weekly or annualised cap on payable hours for part-time Inspectors, and whether Annex O linked leave-day accrual to determined or actual hours.

1. Appeal allowed in part. Grounds 1 to 4, concerning pay, succeeded. Grounds 5 to 9, concerning the alternative equality-of-terms claim and annual-leave-day accrual, were dismissed.

2. The Tribunal should first have construed Annex F, part 11(1). Annexes are construed objectively; the Secretary of State’s subjective intention is irrelevant. Annex F requires pro-rata treatment. Although part-time Inspectors are paid hourly and full-time Inspectors receive annual salaries, both are subject to the same annual limit of 2,080 paid hours.

3. The words “up to a maximum of 40 hours per week” therefore operate, for part-time Inspectors, as an annual average. The first respondent’s week-by-week application was erroneous. It could cause a part-time Inspector who worked above 40 hours in one week to receive a lower rate for the same aggregate hours as a full-time Inspector.

4. That practice was less favourable treatment on the ground of part-time status contrary to regulation 5 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. It also placed women at particular disadvantage under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010, since part-time police officers were predominantly female. The Tribunal’s unpleaded justification analysis identified no legitimate aim; requiring part-time Inspectors to take managed time for hours for which a full-time comparator would be paid was discriminatory, not a legitimate aim.

5. The correct construction of Annex F meant that the parties’ terms should operate equally. The Tribunal was therefore right to dismiss the section 66 equality-of-terms claim.

6. Annex O alone determines the number of annual-leave days. It does so by rank and length of service, without differentiating between full-time and part-time Inspectors. Annex F, part 11(2), concerns only pay for leave days and does not pro-rate the number of days. The leave-accrual complaints accordingly failed.

7. The EAT substituted a finding that claim 2 succeeded against the first respondent under regulation 5 and section 19. The case was remitted to the Tribunal to determine remedies for all successful claims.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the appeal on the pay claims and remitted remedy.
• Employment Tribunal: judgment dated 24 June 2022 dismissed the claims concerning unpaid hours above 40 in a week and annual-leave-day accrual.