Call back for new
personal injury claims only

Leave your details to request a call back.

* Required fields

Name: *

Telephone No:*

What is it regarding:* New Personal Injury Claim Conveyancing Criminal Matter Employment Matter Wills Existing Case

Union member:* Yes No     

If you are a member of a trade union please select Yes otherwise please select No and then click Submit

Issue 47 (June 2000)

Contents

Euro 2000 win for part-time workers

Preston & Ors v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust & Ors
Fletcher & Ors v Midland Bank & Ors

In a momentus decision given on 16 May, the European Court of Justice has confirmed in the part-timer pension cases that:

part timers can claim retrospective membership of an occupational pension scheme at least as far back as 8 April 1976;
the time limit for bringing claims is still open to question. It might be longer than six months from the end of employment; and
where a worker is employed on a succession of separate contracts in a stable employment relationship, such as in the case of supply teachers, the time limit only runs from the date of termination of the last contract.

This judgment amounts to a huge victory. It must, however, be remembered that the decision only relates to preliminary points. The test cases will have to be referred back to the House of Lords and then the Employment Tribunal in Birmingham will move on to the next stage of the nationally directed process for dealing with these cases. The preliminary points determined by the ECJ represent only the first stage: determination of points applicable to all pension schemes. The second and third stages are:

Determination of points applying to particular pension schemes; and determination of individual complaints.

The decision of the ECJ relates to whether or not the procedural requirements of the Equal Pay Act 1970 comply with EU law. Individual member states must set the procedural rules for implementing EU law rights, that neither:

(i) make it impossible in practice for Applicants to exercise their EU law rights (the 'principle of effectiveness'); nor
(ii) are less favourable then the procedural rules governing similar actions of a domestic nature (the 'principle of equivalence').

Throughout these cases, the test case Applicants, backed by UNISON, NASUWT, NUT, NATFHE, ATL and UNIFI, have argued that the two year limit on back pay from the date the claim was lodged and the six month time limit from the end of a contract to lodge a claim fail to comply with both principles. Teachers and lecturers, in the test cases, also argue that, by requiring them to bring a fresh claim within six months of the end of each of a succession of contracts, the principle of effectiveness is breached.

The ECJ have ruled in the Preston and Fletcher judgment, as they did in Magorrian v Eastern Health and Social Services Board [1998] IRLR 86 that the two year limit on back pay breaches the 'principle of effectiveness'.

The ECJ goes on to find that the six month time limit does not itself fail to comply with the principle of effectiveness. It is up to the House of Lords to decide whether it breaches the principle of equivalence. The ECJ have helpfully ruled that the time limits for bringing a claim in the Equal Pay Act cannot be used as a yardstick to justify the six month time limit.

The decision is particularly important for workers employed on a succession of short term contracts. It means that, for many teachers and lecturers, their claims will now be regarded as in time if their cases were brought within six months of the last contract.
The cases are not expected to return to the House of Lords until early next year. In the meantime, the remainder of the 100,000 cases lodged nationally will continue to be stayed.

It is also important for members to be aware, in contributory pension schemes, that they will almost certainly have to fund their own employee's contributions.
A more detailed briefing document on the judgment is available on request from the Thompsons Employment Rights Unit at Congress House.