Jallali v Commissioner of Police: Part-time police officers win pay discrimination appeal

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has handed down a significant decision concerning the pay structure for part-time police Inspectors, finding that the Metropolitan Police's interpretation of ministerial pay regulations constituted both indirect sex discrimination and less favourable treatment of part-time workers.

Mrs D Jallali, a police Inspector who worked part-time between 2010 and 2021, challenged the way her employer applied the 40-hour weekly pay cap contained in Annex F of the Police Regulations 2003. The case centred on whether this cap should be calculated on a week-by-week basis or annualised across the pay year.

Under the disputed interpretation, part-time Inspectors who exceeded 40 hours in any single week received no additional pay for those excess hours, even if their annual total remained below the 2,080-hour threshold applicable to full-time officers. Instead, they were required to take "managed time" in lieu. By contrast, full-time Inspectors received their full annual salary regardless of weekly fluctuations, provided their yearly total stayed within limits.

Lord Fairley, presiding, held that the Employment Tribunal had failed to address the fundamental question of how Annex F, part 11(1) should be construed. Applying established principles of statutory interpretation, the EAT concluded that the phrase "up to a maximum of 40 hours per week" must be interpreted consistently for both full-time and part-time officers.

The judgement emphasised that Annex F's clear objective intention was to provide pro-rata pay for part-time Inspectors. Since the 40-hour cap operated on an annualised basis for salaried full-time officers, the same approach should apply to part-timers. The week-by-week application resulted in part-time Inspectors receiving lower effective hourly rates than their full-time comparators for identical aggregate hours worked.

The EAT found that this constituted less favourable treatment under regulation 5 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. Part-time police officers are predominantly female, and the court held that the Metropolitan Police's practice placed female Inspectors at a particular disadvantage, constituting unlawful indirect sex discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010.

The Employment Tribunal's reasoning on justification was rejected as unclear and based on an unpleaded defence. References to "unpaid overtime" and the need to "level out" hours were found to be confused, failing to recognise that part-time Inspectors working beyond their determined hours do so due to operational necessity.

The appeal succeeded on grounds relating to pay calculation but failed on claims concerning annual leave accrual. The EAT confirmed that Annex O, which governs holiday entitlement, bases the number of leave days solely on rank and length of service, making no distinction between full-time and part-time officers. This element of the claim disclosed no discrimination or less favourable treatment.

The case has been remitted to the Employment Tribunal to determine appropriate remedies for all successful claims. The decision aligns with earlier authority in Clark v Metropolitan Police Authority [2011], reinforcing that part-time police officers must receive genuinely pro-rata treatment in their terms and conditions.

The judgement clarifies an important aspect of police employment law and provides broader guidance on the proper interpretation of statutory pay regulations affecting part-time workers in male-dominated professions where childcare responsibilities drive gender disparities in working patterns.