Mrs P Davies v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council [1999] 
IRLR 769

In a useful decision affecting part time workers who are involved in trade union activities, the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the case of Davies v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council (15 December 1999 unreported) decide that a part timer who attended a full time union organised health and safety training course, was entitled to be paid on a full time basis by her employer. The EAT has rewritten the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act to redefine the payments part time workers should receive using the supremacy of European law.

Mrs Davies worked part time as part of the Council's meals on wheels service. She was elected as a GMB health and safety representative. She attended two training courses organised by the GMB, one a health and safety course and the other an induction course. She was paid only in accordance with her usual part time hours, despite the fact that the courses were run on a full time basis.

Backed by the GMB, she pursued a claim to the Tribunal under Article141 (formerly 119) arguing that she should have received full time pay from her employers, in line with her full time colleagues who also attended the training courses.

The Tribunal found for the Council, and rejected her application, following a previous 
Employment Appeal Tribunal decision, Manor Bakeries Ltd v Nazir [1996] IRLR 604. The Nazir case decided that time spent at a union's annual conference was not "work" in respect of which Article 119 pay would require to be paid.

In Mrs Davies' case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal reject the Nazir decision, following instead the key European Court of Justice decision, Arbeiterwohlfahrt Der Stadt Berlin v Botel [1992] IRLR 423. In the Botel case, a part time worker was elected president of the staff committee. When she attended a full time trade union training course necessary for her work on the Staff Council, the European Court of Justice held that she was entitled to full time pay: "although compensation such as that at issue in the main proceedings does not, as such, arise from the contract of employment, it is nevertheless paid by the employer by virtue of legislative provisions and by reason of the existence of an employment relationship with an employee".

In Mrs Davies' case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal decide that the Botel decision should be followed. Nazir was incorrect, and it was inappropriate to distinguish "work" from "pay" for determining issues under Article 141 (formerly 119).

Further, there was no significant difference between attendance at a training course as a Staff Council member, and attendance at a GMB organised health and safety training course. Importantly, the Employment Appeal Tribunal also scotch the suggestion made by the Employment Tribunal that union organised health and safety courses are only of benefit to the employees involved and the trade union, and not the employer.

Quite properly, they recognise that attending a health and safety course safeguards staff interests which ultimately are of direct benefit to the employer. In any event, the training stemmed wholly from the employment relationship, and accordingly arose "by reason of the existence of an employment relationship" as set out in Botel.

This case has obvious significance for the part time workers attending union organised training courses, who will now be entitled to claim full time pay for the hours spent on the training course, in line with their full time colleagues. The principle may also be taken further. If the Nazir case is no longer good law, then part time workers who attend their annual union's conference may also be entitled to full time wages from their employer.