Fixed-Term Employee Denied Training Opportunity Loses Appeal
A fixed-term employee's appeal concerning alleged less favourable treatment in accessing training has been dismissed.
• public
Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds National Highways Ltd Decision
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal brought by a fixed-term employee, Mr E Komeng, against National Highways Limited. The case centred on Mr Komeng's claim that he was treated less favourably than comparable permanent employees regarding access to a career development training course.
Key Ruling on Fixed-Term Employees and Training
Mr Komeng had complained that he was not informed about, nor offered a place on, a Human Resources Business Partner (HRBP) development masterclass. The original Employment Tribunal had dismissed his claims of unfair dismissal, direct race and sex discrimination, and less favourable treatment under the Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002.
A significant aspect of the appeal concerned whether a fixed-term employee must demonstrate a distinct detriment when alleging less favourable treatment in relation to training opportunities. His Honour Judge Auerbach concluded that, under Regulation 3(2) of the 2002 Regulations, less favourable treatment in relation to the opportunity to receive training constitutes a breach, without the need for a separate finding of detriment. This aspect of the appeal succeeded.
Objective Justification and Timing
However, the tribunal's original finding that the treatment was objectively justified was upheld. The EAT agreed that National Highways Limited had a legitimate aim in meeting the individual development needs of employees and ensuring an appropriate use of public funds. It was considered reasonable not to invest in training for an employee on a fixed-term contract who was due to leave the organisation shortly after the course would take place. The tribunal noted that Mr Komeng had not expressed interest in the HRBP route and was focused on other qualifications, such as CIPD training.
Furthermore, the EAT found no error in the original tribunal's decision to dismiss the claims as being out of time, and it was not considered just and equitable to extend that time limit. The tribunal's findings were that Mr Komeng's resignation was primarily due to accepting a better job offer, rather than in response to any breach of contract by National Highways.
Consequently, all grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the original tribunal's decision stands.
Read the entire judgment here: Komeng v National Highways Ltd EAT 75
