Matthews v Kent and Medway Towns Fire Authority

Technopedia Center

Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science
S1 Informatics S1 Information Systems S1 Information Technology S1 Computer Engineering S1 Electrical Engineering S1 Civil Engineering

faculty of Economics and Business
S1 Management S1 Accountancy

Faculty of Letters and Educational Sciences
S1 English literature S1 English language education S1 Mathematics education S1 Sports Education

Matthews v Kent and Medway Towns Fire Authority - Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Matthews v Kent & Medway Towns Fire Authority

Court	House of Lords
Decided	1 March 2006
Citations	[2006] UKHL 8, [2006] IRLR 367
Case history
Prior action	[2005] ICR 84
Court membership
Judges sitting	Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell and Lord Mance
Keywords
Discrimination

Matthews v Kent & Medway Towns Fire Authority [2006] UKHL 8 is a UK labour law case concerning discrimination of part-time workers, and justifications.

Facts

Part and full-time fire fighters were being paid differently, and claimed unlawful discrimination under the PTWR 2000. Full-time firefighters responded to emergencies and were engaged in educational, preventive and administrative tasks, while part-time firefighters did not do the administrative work.

The Employment Tribunal held that the full-time firefighters fell under regulation 2(3)(a) and the part-time firefighters under regulation 2(3)(d), nor did they do broadly similar work under regulation 4(a)(ii). The EAT upheld the Tribunal. The Court of Appeal^[1] held that they had had the same kind of contract under regulation 2(3), because the categories were meant to be mutually exclusive. However, the appeal was still dismissed because the firefighters did not do the same or broadly similar work under regulation 4(a).

Judgment

The House of Lords held by a majority that the two requirements for comparability are that there is the same type of contract being used (not the same terms) or a broadly similar kind of work being done. The Directive clause 3(2) indicated the broad nature of the inquiry. Four held there was the same contract type, and three held there was the same kind of work. The majority held the firefighters were all in category of regulation 2(3)(a). It did not matter under regulation 2(4)(a)(ii) that the full-time fire fighters did a few extra tasks, because their jobs were still broadly similar. The case was remitted to the tribunal to be finalised.

Lady Hale remarked,^[2] ‘in answering [the question of broad similarity] particular weight should be given to the extent to which their work is in fact the same and to the importance of that work to the enterprise as a whole. Otherwise one runs the risk of giving too much weight to differences which are the almost inevitable result of one worker working full-time’

Lord Carswell and Lord Mance dissented.

Notes

^ [2005] ICR 84
^ [2006] UKHL 8, [44]

References

Categories:

Hidden category:

Use dmy dates from April 2022

v t e Sources on atypical work
Part-time Workers Directive 97/81/EC
Part-time Workers Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/1551)
Matthews v Kent and Medway Fire Authority [2006] UKHL 8
O'Brien v Ministry of Justice [2013] UKSC 6
Fixed-Term Work Directive 99/70/EC
Fixed-term Employees Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2034)
Adeneler v Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos (2006) C-212/04
Del Cerro Alonso v Osakidetza (2007) C-307/05
Employment Agencies Act 1973 (c 35)
Employment Agencies Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/3319)
Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 (c 11)
Temporary and Agency Work Directive 2008/104/EC
Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/93)
Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 21
James v Greenwich LBC [2008] EWCA Civ 35
see UK agency, part time and fixed term work

Facts

Judgment

See also

Notes

References