I've just been reading the thread below regarding change of contract for an employee who is now part-time.
I understand that legislation is in place to ensure that a part-time employee is treated no less favourably than a full-time employee where there is no objective reason to treat them differently.
I'd like to see if this situation would be objective:
If someone waas working in a company with both full- and part-time employees on teams who were doing the same broad type of work. Say that the full-time employee was expected to travel to client sites, in Ireland and abroad, missing weekends etc. with family in order to be on site for a full week of work, was expected to work late in order to meet deadlines, and was responsible for attending meetings which took place outside of the part-time employee's working hours, and the part-time person did not have these demands placed on them as their working hours did not facilitate it. Would this be an objective reason for the full-time employee to be entitled to a more favourable treatment?
I understand that legislation is in place to ensure that a part-time employee is treated no less favourably than a full-time employee where there is no objective reason to treat them differently.
I'd like to see if this situation would be objective:
If someone waas working in a company with both full- and part-time employees on teams who were doing the same broad type of work. Say that the full-time employee was expected to travel to client sites, in Ireland and abroad, missing weekends etc. with family in order to be on site for a full week of work, was expected to work late in order to meet deadlines, and was responsible for attending meetings which took place outside of the part-time employee's working hours, and the part-time person did not have these demands placed on them as their working hours did not facilitate it. Would this be an objective reason for the full-time employee to be entitled to a more favourable treatment?