Comparable Full-Time Worker in UK Employment Law

Part-time working is a common feature of the modern UK workforce, particularly across professional services, retail, healthcare and administrative roles. While flexible working arrangements can benefit both employers and employees, they also introduce specific legal obligations that businesses must understand and manage carefully. One of the most important, and often misunderstood, concepts in part-time worker law is that of the comparable full-time worker.

The idea of comparing a part-time employee to a full-time equivalent sits at the heart of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. These regulations are designed to ensure that individuals are not treated unfairly simply because they work fewer hours. In practice, this means employers must often assess a part-time employee’s pay, benefits and working conditions by reference to how a comparable full-time employee is treated.

The Regulations apply to individuals employed under a contract of employment. They do not generally apply to agency workers, casual workers or those who are genuinely self-employed, although other legal protections may still apply depending on the individual’s employment status and the facts of the working arrangement.

For HR professionals and business owners, failing to identify an appropriate comparator, or misunderstanding how the comparison should be applied, can expose the organisation to claims and employment tribunal risk, as well as reputational damage. The comparator exercise is not theoretical. It is a practical, fact-specific assessment that frequently arises in disputes involving pay, holiday entitlement, access to benefits, training opportunities and redundancy selection.

What this article is about

This article provides a comprehensive overview of the concept of the comparable full-time worker in UK employment law. It explains how the comparator is defined, how employers should identify one in practice, and how the comparison is used to determine whether a part-time employee has suffered less favourable treatment. The guide also explores common risk areas for employers and sets out practical steps HR teams can take to remain compliant and defensible.

Section A: What Is a Comparable Full-Time Worker?

The concept of a comparable full-time worker is a statutory one, created by the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. The purpose of the comparator is to provide a lawful benchmark against which the treatment of a part-time employee can be assessed when considering whether they have been treated less favourably because they work part time.

1. The statutory definition and purpose

A comparable full-time worker is a full-time employee who is employed by the same employer under the same type of contract and who is engaged in the same or broadly similar work. In assessing whether work is the same or broadly similar, the law requires regard to be had to factors such as skill, experience and qualifications, rather than job title. This helps ensure comparisons reflect the substance of the role rather than how it is labelled internally.

2. The “same employer” and contract-type requirements

The requirement that the comparator be employed by the same employer is significant. Employers cannot rely on external market comparators or employees working for other legal entities to justify differences in treatment. The comparison must be internal, reflecting how the employer treats its own full-time workforce.

The comparator must also be employed under the same or a broadly similar type of contract. Contractual differences can matter where they materially affect the terms being compared. For example, a permanent part-time employee will not usually be able to rely on a fixed-term full-time employee as a valid comparator if the fixed-term status is relevant to the benefit or term in question.

Where more than one full-time employee could act as a comparator, a part-time employee may be able to rely on the comparator whose terms are most favourable. For employers, this makes it important to understand how different pay arrangements and benefit structures operate across teams and roles.

3. When no real comparator exists

The Regulations recognise that there may be circumstances where no directly comparable full-time employee exists. In those situations, employers are not automatically relieved of their obligations. A hypothetical comparator may be used, but this is not a default position. A hypothetical comparator will only be used where no actual full-time comparator exists and tribunals will expect employers to demonstrate that a genuine search for a real comparator has been undertaken.

This is particularly relevant in small organisations, highly specialised roles or workplaces where a role is commonly performed on a part-time basis. Employers should therefore assume that the absence of an obvious full-time comparator does not remove legal risk and should consider how a full-time equivalent would be treated if the role were performed full time.

Section summary

A comparable full-time worker is a full-time employee of the same employer, engaged in the same or broadly similar work under the same or broadly similar type of contract. The comparator provides the legal benchmark for assessing whether a part-time employee has been treated less favourably because they work part time. Understanding who qualifies as a valid comparator is essential, as the comparison underpins compliance with the Part-time Workers Regulations and shapes employer exposure to claims risk.

Section B: How Employers Identify a Comparable Full-Time Worker

Identifying a comparable full-time worker is a practical exercise that requires employers to look beyond job titles and contractual labels. The assessment must focus on the reality of the work being performed and the contractual framework within which it is carried out. For HR teams, this is often the stage at which errors occur, particularly in organisations with varied working patterns, multiple contractual models or bespoke roles.

1. Start with the employer and contract framework

The starting point is to establish whether there is a full-time employee employed by the same employer under the same or a broadly similar type of contract. The contract type matters because the comparator should sit within the same contractual framework as the part-time employee. For example, a part-time employee engaged on a permanent contract should ordinarily be compared with a full-time permanent employee rather than someone engaged on a fixed-term, casual or otherwise materially different contractual arrangement.

A comparator must be employed under the same or a broadly similar type of contract. If contractual differences materially affect the term being compared, the comparison may be invalid. For example, a permanent part-time employee cannot usually rely on a fixed-term full-time worker as a valid comparator if the fixed-term status is relevant to the benefit or term in dispute, such as eligibility for a retention bonus tied to ongoing employment or enhanced redundancy terms linked to permanent status.

2. Assess whether the work is the same or broadly similar

Once a potential comparator has been identified, employers must assess whether the work undertaken is the same or broadly similar. This involves examining the nature of the duties performed, the level of responsibility, the skills and experience required and any qualifications needed to carry out the role. Minor differences in tasks will not usually prevent a valid comparison if the core function of the role is substantially the same.

Employers should be cautious about overstating differences to avoid the comparison. In practice, tribunals will look to the substance of the role and the reality of what the employees do. This means that a comparison can remain valid even where there are differences in some duties, provided those differences do not change the overall nature of the work or the level at which it is performed.

3. Multiple potential comparators and the “most favourable” issue

In many organisations, more than one full-time employee could potentially act as a comparator. In these circumstances, a part-time employee may be able to rely on a comparator whose terms are most favourable. This becomes particularly relevant where pay structures, allowances, commission schemes or benefits differ across departments, sites or teams.

For employers, this is a practical compliance issue. HR teams should understand where terms vary across the business, how those variations arise and whether they are defensible. Where differences exist, employers should ensure they can demonstrate that terms and benefits are applied consistently and lawfully, including on a pro rata basis where appropriate.

4. When no actual comparator exists and using a hypothetical comparator

In some workplaces, particularly small businesses or highly specialised teams, there may be no obvious full-time employee carrying out the same or broadly similar work. In these situations, employers should not assume that the analysis ends. A hypothetical comparator will only be used where no actual full-time comparator exists, but tribunals will expect employers first to demonstrate that a genuine search for a real comparator has been undertaken.

Where a hypothetical comparison is required, employers should consider how a full-time employee performing the same or broadly similar role would be treated if such a role existed within the organisation. This will often involve looking at broader organisational practice for equivalent responsibility levels, how benefits are structured and the rationale for any differences in eligibility or access.

Section summary

Employers identify a comparable full-time worker by confirming the comparator is employed by the same employer, under the same or broadly similar type of contract, and performs the same or broadly similar work when assessed by duties, responsibility, skills, experience and qualifications. Where multiple comparators exist, a part-time employee may be able to rely on the most favourable comparator. If no real comparator exists, a hypothetical comparator may be used, but only after a genuine search for an actual comparator has been undertaken.

Section C: Less Favourable Treatment and Legal Risk

The purpose of identifying a comparable full-time worker is to determine whether a part-time employee has been treated less favourably because they work part time. Under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, less favourable treatment occurs where a part-time employee’s contractual terms or employment conditions are worse than those of a comparable full-time employee and the difference cannot be objectively justified.

1. Pay, bonuses and financial benefits

Pay is one of the most common areas where disputes arise. While part-time employees can lawfully receive lower overall pay because they work fewer hours, their hourly rate should generally be equivalent to that of a comparable full-time employee. Differences in pay structures, such as exclusion from bonus schemes, allowances or commission arrangements, may amount to less favourable treatment unless the employer can demonstrate objective justification.

Employers should take particular care where financial benefits are framed as “full-time only”. If a benefit relates to the work performed rather than hours worked, excluding part-time employees may be difficult to justify. Any differential treatment must be supported by evidence of a legitimate business aim and a proportionate means of achieving that aim.

2. Holiday entitlement and working time

Holiday entitlement is another frequent risk area. Part-time employees are entitled to the same minimum statutory holiday entitlement as full-time employees on a pro rata basis. This includes the right to paid annual leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998.

Providing fewer days than a pro-rated equivalent, or applying less favourable rules to holiday accrual, carry-over or payment in lieu, may expose employers to claims. The comparator analysis is often used to assess whether part-time employees are receiving a fair and lawful share of contractual holiday benefits that go beyond the statutory minimum.

3. Access to benefits, training and promotion

Excluding part-time employees from access to benefits, training opportunities or promotion pathways solely because they work part time is likely to be unlawful unless objectively justified. Benefits such as occupational pension schemes, enhanced family leave, professional development programmes and discretionary benefits should generally be made available on a pro rata basis where appropriate.

Tribunals will scrutinise whether the employer’s reason for exclusion is genuinely unrelated to part-time status and whether the measure goes no further than necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. Employers should be able to evidence both elements of the objective justification test.

4. Redundancy selection and wider discrimination risk

Redundancy selection is a particularly sensitive context for comparator analysis. Selection criteria that disadvantage part-time employees, such as availability-based scoring, minimum hours thresholds or certain length of service measures, may result in less favourable treatment when compared with comparable full-time employees.

Employers should also be alert to the risk of indirect discrimination. Part-time working is more common among certain protected groups, particularly women, meaning redundancy criteria that disadvantage part-time employees may give rise to indirect sex discrimination claims alongside claims under the Part-time Workers Regulations.

5. Objective justification and employer burden of proof

Where less favourable treatment is established, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate objective justification. This requires the employer to show that the difference in treatment pursues a legitimate business aim and that the means used to achieve that aim are appropriate and necessary.

Cost considerations may form part of a wider justification, but cost alone will rarely be sufficient to objectively justify less favourable treatment. Employers must be able to demonstrate that the treatment is proportionate and that less discriminatory alternatives have been considered.

Failure to meet this threshold can expose employers to employment tribunal claims. Claims under the Regulations are not subject to a minimum qualifying period and must generally be brought within three months less one day of the act complained of. Remedies may include compensation, declarations and recommendations for future compliance.

Section summary

Less favourable treatment arises where a part-time employee is treated worse than a comparable full-time employee because of their part-time status. Common risk areas include pay, holiday entitlement, access to benefits, training and redundancy selection. Employers can only defend differences where they can demonstrate objective justification, making careful comparator analysis and evidence-based decision-making essential to managing legal risk.

Section D: Practical Compliance for Employers and HR Teams

Applying the concept of the comparable full-time worker in practice requires more than an abstract understanding of the law. Employers must ensure that the principles underpinning the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 are embedded into everyday HR processes, contractual documentation and management decision-making. Many part-time worker claims arise not from deliberate discrimination, but from poorly structured policies, inconsistent application or a lack of understanding at management level.

1. Auditing pay, benefits and contractual terms

A sensible starting point for employers is to carry out a structured audit of pay, benefits and contractual terms across part-time and full-time roles. This should include hourly pay rates, overtime arrangements, bonus and commission schemes, holiday entitlement, sick pay, family leave enhancements and access to non-cash benefits such as private healthcare or wellbeing programmes.

Where differences exist, employers should be clear whether those differences arise purely from pro rata application or whether they are based on other criteria. Any difference that cannot be explained by pro rating should be carefully reviewed to determine whether objective justification exists and whether that justification can be evidenced.

2. Clear contracts and policy wording

Clear and accurate contractual documentation plays a critical role in managing legal risk. Employment contracts and workplace policies should explain how entitlements are calculated for part-time employees and confirm that benefits are applied on a pro rata basis where appropriate.

Ambiguous wording, overly broad discretionary clauses or informal arrangements applied inconsistently across the workforce can undermine an employer’s ability to defend a claim of less favourable treatment. From a compliance perspective, clarity and consistency are often as important as the substance of the benefit itself.

3. Manager awareness and decision-making

Line managers frequently make decisions that affect part-time employees, including decisions about workload allocation, access to training, performance assessment, promotion and redundancy selection. Employers should ensure that managers understand that part-time status alone cannot justify treating an employee less favourably.

Providing targeted training for managers on comparator principles and part-time worker protections can significantly reduce the risk of inadvertent discrimination. Managers should be encouraged to involve HR early where decisions may affect part-time employees differently from their full-time colleagues.

4. Record-keeping and evidence

Robust record-keeping is an important practical safeguard. Employers should retain records showing how comparators have been identified, how pro rata calculations have been applied and why any differences in treatment exist. This includes documenting the rationale for decisions where objective justification is relied upon.

In the event of an employment tribunal claim, contemporaneous records can provide crucial evidence that decisions were lawful, reasoned and not driven by part-time status. Poor or inconsistent records often weaken an otherwise defensible position.

5. Dealing with roles with no obvious comparator

Where no obvious full-time comparator exists, employers should still adopt a structured and defensible approach. This involves considering how a full-time employee performing the same or broadly similar role would be treated if such a role existed within the organisation and ensuring consistency with wider organisational practice.

Taking this approach helps demonstrate fairness and proportionality and reduces the risk that part-time arrangements will be viewed as arbitrary or discriminatory if later scrutinised by a tribunal.

Section summary

Practical compliance depends on embedding comparator principles into contracts, policies and everyday management decisions. Regular audits, clear documentation, manager training and careful record-keeping all play a role in reducing the risk of less favourable treatment claims. By applying the comparable full-time worker concept consistently and transparently, employers can meet their legal obligations while supporting flexible and part-time working arrangements.

FAQs

1. What counts as a comparable full-time worker?

A comparable full-time worker is a full-time employee of the same employer, employed under the same or a broadly similar type of contract, who performs the same or broadly similar work as the part-time employee. In assessing whether work is broadly similar, regard is had to duties, level of responsibility, skills, experience and qualifications, rather than job titles alone.

2. Can a part-time employee rely on more than one comparator?

Where more than one full-time employee could act as a valid comparator, a part-time employee may be able to rely on the comparator whose terms and conditions are most favourable. Employers must therefore consider all potential comparators within the organisation, rather than selecting a comparator that produces the least favourable outcome.

3. What happens if there is no full-time comparator?

If no actual full-time comparator exists, a hypothetical comparator may be used. However, this is not automatic. Tribunals will expect employers to demonstrate that a genuine search for a real comparator has been undertaken before relying on a hypothetical comparison. Employers must then consider how a full-time employee performing the same or broadly similar role would be treated if such a role existed.

4. Are differences in treatment ever lawful?

Differences in treatment may be lawful if the employer can demonstrate objective justification. This requires the employer to show that the difference in treatment pursues a legitimate business aim and that the means used to achieve that aim are appropriate and necessary. Cost considerations alone will rarely be sufficient to justify less favourable treatment.

5. Does the comparator rule apply only to pay?

No. The comparator analysis applies to all contractual terms and employment conditions. This includes pay, holiday entitlement, access to benefits, training opportunities, promotion prospects and redundancy selection criteria. Employers should consider the comparator principle across the full range of employment terms.

Conclusion

The concept of the comparable full-time worker is central to the legal protection afforded to part-time employees in the UK. It provides the benchmark through which employers must assess whether part-time employees are being treated fairly and lawfully when compared with their full-time colleagues. For HR professionals and business owners, understanding how to identify a valid comparator and apply the comparison correctly is critical to managing risk, particularly in areas such as pay, holiday entitlement, access to benefits and redundancy selection.

Employers should ensure that part-time employees receive pro rata treatment where appropriate and that any differences in treatment are supported by clear, evidence-based objective justification. In practice, the most defensible approach is one that combines consistent contractual drafting, structured auditing of terms and benefits, informed manager decision-making and strong record-keeping. This not only reduces the likelihood of claims but supports fair, sustainable flexible working arrangements across the workforce.

Glossary

Useful Links