Can companies only offer full time roles?

[Oxfordblue]

My friend works part-time at a school & the management have decided the want all staff to bring employed on a full-time basis.
So all staff now have to re-apply for the full-time positions if they wish to remain working at the school.

My friend is upset because she doesn't (can't) work full time & feels they are discriminating against women, because most of the part-time staff are women.

She has written to the headmaster who called her in for a meeting. He was quite stern with her & assured her they've consulted lawyers. She will be offered redundancy.

She feels they have basically forced her (& others) out of their jobs.

They have and they are utterly stupid. Stupid beyond belief! Most schools have part time staff. They do it to aid recruitment and keep brilliant staff. It is also discriminatory against women who are the majority of part time workers. It stinks, quite frankly.

However, I believe they can alter the terms and conditions of employment and it’s legal to do so. It’s unbelievably stupid though. Is your friend in a union? Most schools are more than happy to offer part time jobs and job shares are normal. I actually know two heads who job share. Keep the talent!!!

I'm not sure about the union, it's a private school.

I wonder about the legality of full time only?

It’s not illegal to offer full time roles only if it suits the business needs. However, she should consult ACAS about it as not sure about the legality of making her redundant based on being part time?

I'm certainly no expert In employment law, but in order to do this aren't the school making all the part-time post redundant and then telling staff they have to apply for new posts?

I would think that just changing the hours from full to part time would not be enough to justify redundancy. There would need to be material differences in the jobs being offered from those taken away.

I would advise her to seek advice from a qualified employment law specialist.

cremeBrulee the roles have gone from part-time to full time. The thought is that women tend to be in part-time roles so she (they) are unable to able for the full time role.

I'll remind her about ACAS, thanks

I doubt they have consulted lawyers given the way they are behaving. Increasing working hours is not a redundancy situation. Forcing everyone to go full time is potentially indirect sex discrimination. It would be up to the employer to show that the change is objectively justified if this goes to tribunal.

As well as contacting ACAS (who are usually good but sometimes give very poor advice) your friend should raise a grievance saying that she does not agree to changing hours and that she considers it to be indirect sex discrimination. If the school carries on down this path she should think about making a sex discrimination claim. She should check her house insurance to see if it includes legal cover as she may need to consult a lawyer who specialises in employment law.

Sounds like indirect sex discrimination.

Of course they can. By the looks of it they have made all part time staff redundant and welcomed them to reapply as opposed to merely increasing the hours. I don't think that she could reasonably argue sex discrimination. They are choosing to make all part time role Redland ant and only accepting full time applications. If this was sex discrimination then any job that was full time would be sex discrimination.

DairyisClosed yes that's is what's happening - so my question is, is this legit? Is there anything she can do?

I have suggested CAB, her household insurance & ACAS but I can't find anything about her 'rights'.

Could still be sex discrimination, if only the part timers were made redundant, and there is also the part time workers prevention of less favourable treatment regulation. Get some legal advice.

Dozer ah yes excellent - I'll look for her. Thanks All.

...although the school won't be having any part-time workers because all jobs will be full time only...arrrrgh!

She would be best to take advice from an experienced employment lawyer rather than acas/cab as they don’t tend to have much of an idea. It wouldn’t be hugely expensive to have a couple of hours advice and would be well worth it.

If they dismiss her because she works part time it could possibly be either indirect sex discrimination or breach of part time workers regs. Either way if there is not a business need for it, they would not be able to dismiss her lawfully.

In terms of her “rights” she could raise a grievance. Ultimately though if they do g9 ahead and dismiss her, she would have to raise a tribunal claim.

I'm not an expert (still studying!) But have attached 2 pictures that give a quick guide to indirect discrimination as mentioned upthread. Your friend really needs to consult an employment lawyer if she wants to go down that route.

However, if she does, ask your friend what she really wants as an outcome. Say she makes the claim and the school backs down and she keeps her job. It's probably not going to be a comfortable working environment for her anymore, does she want that? Are there any other nearby schools that are taking on part time workers?

By the looks of it they have made all part time staff redundant and welcomed them to reapply as opposed to merely increasing the hours

As per my post, an employer making part time roles redundant and replacing them with full time roles is not a true redundancy situation.

I don't think that she could reasonably argue sex discrimination

Yes she can. Making part time roles into full time roles (which is what they are doing here) is potentially indirect sex discrimination since part time roles are predominantly held by women. There is no problem with creating full time roles. It is the removal of existing part time roles that is potentially a problem as has been proved in a number of tribunal cases. Whether it is really a problem depends if they can objectively justify the move.

Have you looked into the cost of working full time and paying for, I presume child care while you are doing working ?

prh47bridge is correct. My question is where on earth are the unions in all this? As this is a school I would expect this kind of situation to attract all sorts of attention from unions.

Could she suggest 2 part timers jobshare one of the full time posts?

“It's probably not going to be a comfortable working environment for her anymore, does she want that?” The employer, not OP, will have caused the issue, and people who bring grievances or tribunal claims against their employers should not be treated badly at work.

“Are there any other nearby schools that are taking on part time workers?” Why should OP and her PT colleagues have to seek a new job - and lose contractual terms and conditions, continuity of service and many employment rights - due to her employer’s unfair actions?

cakedoesntjudge what are you studying? That's helpful, thank you.

pimlioolife her & her colleague have requested a job share which has been declined.

Dozer she is job hunting anyway, but nothing around at the moment.

She's also very upset that a job that she's worked hard in has been taken away.

Oxford I'm studying law

Dozer I completely agree with you and in a perfect world the school would just back down and nothing would change for OP's friend. However, in reality it is something to consider. Legal battles are expensive and, even if she has a good chance of winning, it is worth considering if the cost is worth it to her if she still feels miserable at work afterwards. I'm not saying I agree with the school, I absolutely don't, I'm just looking at it from all angles that's all.

Also, my apologies - I can't make paragraphs work on the app at the moment!