Enrolment into less favourable pension scheme was not part-time status discrimination
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed that the refusal to allow circuit-judges to remain in an older, more favourable pension scheme, was not discriminatory on the grounds of part-time working.
The facts
In Clayson and Others v Ministry of Justice, the EAT considered whether three former part-time recorders, later appointed as full-time circuit judges were treated less favourably under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 when they were not allowed to remain in an older, more favourable pension scheme. The claimants were appointed as full-time circuit judges after 31 March 1995, which was the key date for enrolment into the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 pension scheme (JUPRA Scheme). The JUPRA Scheme was less favourable to the pension scheme that was available to full-time circuit judges appointed before 31 March 1995. The claimants argued this was less favourable treatment on the grounds of their part-time status, on the basis that they had been judges before 31 March 1995, albeit they had not been full-time circuit judges before that date.
Tribunal decision
The Tribunal found that the reason the claimants were enrolled into the JUPRA Scheme was because they were appointed as full-time circuit judges after 31 March 1995. Any judge appointed after this date, regardless of their prior part-time status, would have been ineligible for the more favourable pension scheme. The claimants' treatment was therefore based on the timing of their appointment, not their previous status as part-time recorders. The claimants appealed to the EAT.
EAT decision
The EAT agreed with the Tribunal's decision. It emphasised that the appropriate comparator for the claimants was any new judicial office holder appointed after 31 March 1995. Any such comparator would also have lost the right to enrol in the more favourable pension scheme that preceded the JUPRA Scheme. It would not be appropriate for the claimants to compare themselves to a circuit judge appointed before 31 March 1995.
Learning points
This case serves as a useful illustration of how to select the appropriate comparator in claims of discrimination on the grounds of part-time working. It demonstrates that the basis of the claimants' treatment was linked to the pension scheme rules changing after their appointment, not discrimination based on part-time status.