The Part Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations: Regulatory Impact Assessment

CONTENTS

Title
Objectives, purpose and intended effect
Options
Expected benefits
Quantifying the benefits
Estimated Compliance Costs
Costs for the typical employer
Business sectors affected
Small Businesses
Other Costs
Results of Consultations
Summary of Costs and Benefits
Sensitivity Analysis
Enforcement, Sanctions, Monitoring and Evaluation
Annex

Title

1. This regulatory impact assessment (RIA) considers the potential impact of the draft Part Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. The Regulations will apply clause 19 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. An RIA for the Bill was produced in February 1999. However, it did not go into detail about the benefits and costs as the Regulations had not been finalised and the results of research used in preparing this RIA were not then available.

Objectives, purpose and intended effect

Objective
2. The Government wishes to promote a flexible labour market in which employers and workers work in partnership. This needs to be underpinned by a framework of employment rights that facilitates a diversity of employment patterns, such as part time work, that suit the needs of employers and individuals. The legislative framework should help employers to manage their businesses efficiently, but also ensure minimum standards and fairness for all workers.

Purpose
3. The Regulations give effect to the European Council Directive 97/81/EC, which identified two general purposes:

• to provide for the removal of discrimination against part time workers and to improve the quality of part time work;
  
  
• to facilitate the development of part time work on a voluntary basis and to contribute to the flexible organisation of working time in a manner which takes into account the needs of employers and workers (1) .

4. The Government believes that these Regulations will ensure that part time workers are treated no less favourably than comparable full time workers.

The problem/ risk assessment
5. The Government believes that discrimination against part time workers is both unfair and inefficient. As well as disadvantaging those who are subject to discrimination, it is also damaging to the labour market as a whole by potentially restricting the movement of labour. Full time workers may be less willing to move into part time work for fear of being treated less favourably than at present (e.g. lower hourly pay or less opportunity for advancement). In addition, people looking for work may be discouraged from looking for or accepting part time work if they expect to be treated less favourably than in a full time job.

6. In recent years the extent of any such discrimination has diminished as the result of changes in legislation and labour market conditions. Legislation such as the removal in 1995 of the differences in protection against unfair dismissal according to numbers of hours worked, has increased job security for part time workers. Some employers have sought to keep the services of skilled workers who do not wish to work full time by offering a diversity of working patterns. Nonetheless, some discrimination remains. In a competitive labour market, people subjected to unfavourable treatment should be able to move to better employers. This is not always possible and people in part time jobs face particular difficulties. If they are limited in the hours they can work (e.g. during school time) or they are not geographically mobile (e.g. second earners) the employer may have some monopsony power over this group of workers. As a result they may offer conditions that are worse than they would offer in a competitive market and worse than they provide for full time workers (who have more choice). As the source of any monopsony power would be difficult to remove, legally binding standards of fair treatment provide a more effective remedy.

Proposed remedy
7. The purpose of this measure is to establish decent minimum standards for treatment of part time workers. The Government has already introduced minimum standards for workers including the National Minimum Wage and the Working Time Regulations. However, the potential for residual discrimination remains. These draft Regulations are intended to ensure that:

• part time workers have a right not to be subjected to any detriment for working part time;
  
  
• part time workers can seek redress for dismissal/redundancy on the grounds that the worker worked part time;
  
  
• part time workers have the right to request a written statement of reasons for less favourable treatment.

Options

8. The Government is acting on several fronts to improve the lot of part time workers. They benefit disproportionately from employment legislation setting out minimum standards (National Minimum Wage and the Working Time Regulations). The Government is also backing campaigns to encourage flexible patterns of work, and programmes to provide extra childcare; both of these will enable part time workers to have a wider choice of jobs. The European Social Partners reached an agreement that legislation was the most appropriate remedy to the problem of discrimination. The UK government is obliged to introduce legislation to implement the Directive. Failure to do so could make the UK subject to Francovich claims - i.e. individuals who would have benefited might be able to claim compensation from the Government. Section 19 of the Employment Relations Act committed the Government to produce regulations.

Expected benefits

9. The aim of the Regulations is to ensure that employers apply the principle of equal treatment to all part time workers.

Benefits to workers
10. Some part time workers will benefit directly from the proposed Regulations through higher pay or other benefits. But the Regulations will widen choice for all workers. Guaranteed minimum standards may make part time work a realistic option for many full time workers, who wish to achieve a better balance between home and working life. They may also encourage people not working to take up part time jobs. Although there is little statistical evidence of discrimination, there certainly has been discrimination in the past, and the perception persists. As a result people may be inhibited from taking up part time work. Legislation will specify clear and enforceable rights for part time workers and may therefore encourage people to look for and take part time jobs.

Benefits to the economy
11. If people are able to achieve a better balance between work and home there are positive benefits for the economy and society. Workers may be less inhibited about changing jobs and thereby losing their protection, which should help to promote a more flexible labour market and greater labour market attachment. Confidence in equal treatment may mean (a) people do not drop out of the labour market and (b) people are more likely to move from inactivity. As a consequence labour supply should increase, benefiting employers.

Other benefits
12. There may be cost savings to the Employment Tribunal Service and ACAS. Currently part time workers (the majority of whom are female) may seek to redress from discrimination by trying to prove indirect sex discrimination. The new Regulations make their rights clearer and easier to enforce. This clarity will also make it easier for employers to understand their obligations.

Quantifying the benefits

13. The Regulations will apply to part time workers. However, the Labour Force Survey (LFS) - the main source of official labour market data - only distinguishes between employees and self-employed. It does not measure the number of workers as defined in employment law. Moreover, the LFS is based on self-reporting of employment status, and so the measure of employees based on the LFS could actually capture people who are workers in terms of employment law, rather than employees. There is in practice often no clear-cut distinction between employee and worker. In many cases employment status may be obvious but in the event of a dispute only a court or tribunal can give a definitive decision. Research commissioned by the DTI concluded that perhaps around 5% of all in employment (approximately 1 million people) were, in terms of employment law, workers but not employees. We do not know how many of these work part time.

14. The estimates of numbers benefiting and compliance costs to employers presented below are all based on employees as measured in the LFS and the BMRB survey of part time employees, i.e. based on the subjective judgements of individuals and employers respectively. They are therefore likely to underestimate the numbers of people benefiting and the compliance cost for employers, as these apply to workers, but we are unable to quantify the precise impact. However, it seems likely that any underestimation will be very modest and should not affect aggregate compliance costs by more than about 5%.

15. The benefits identified in the previous section are not easily quantifiable. According to the LFS, there are approximately 6 million part time employees in Great Britain.

16. We do not believe that there is widespread unfavourable treatment of part time employees. Job satisfaction among part time employees is higher than among full time employees. The 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey found that part time employees were much more likely to regard themselves as being fairly treated than were full time employees - 61% compared with 45%.

17. The estimates below make extensive use of a survey commissioned by the DTI after the agreement between the Social Partners. It was carried out by BMRB in late 1998. The survey investigated differences in terms and conditions between part time and comparable full time employees in the same workplace, looking at pay and non-wage benefits (2). The survey found some evidence of discrimination between part time and full time employees, but it was not extensive.

18. According to the BMRB survey, about 70% of establishments used part time employees. Of all the workplaces with at least one part time employee, 30% had full time staff doing the same jobs as part time staff, where a comparison of terms and conditions could be made. However, closer investigation suggests many of these part time employees were in fact performing different tasks compared with their supposed full time comparators, so this proportion is likely to be an overestimate. In the Regulations the test for a full time comparator is based primarily on whether the workers are doing the same job, rather than whether workers have the same qualifications, experience etc. Combining the findings of the survey with the Labour Force Survey, we estimate that there are about 1 million part time employees who work alongside a full time employee doing a comparable job.

19. The following paragraphs examine how these employees might be affected by each of the main clauses in the Regulations. We estimate that at least 400,000 employees could benefit directly from the end of less favourable treatment. Some people may stand to benefit on more than one account. The value of these benefits is estimated to be £23.4 million.

Table 1: Estimated value of benefits to part time employees

Pay
20. The BMRB survey found that where part time employees were employed alongside comparable full time employees, wages were the same in 67% of cases (where the respondent was able to comment). In 33% of cases the employer said they paid part time employees less. However, a follow up qualitative study found that in nearly every case the jobs were different in some way (e.g. different responsibility) and could reflect differences in grade or level. Therefore few of these employers actually discriminated on the basis of pay against their part time employees (see Annex). We estimate that perhaps 27,000 part time employees could benefit from this regulation. To illustrate we calculate the effect of a 5% increase in their average weekly gross pay (see Annex for explanation and calculation). This produces an estimate of the total net benefit of bringing pay into line of £5.8 million per year.

21. Our survey, on which these estimates are based, was carried out before the National Minimum Wage came into force. Many part time employees work in low paid jobs; for example 35% of part time employees work in the wholesale, retail and motor trade and the hotel and restaurant industry. People working in these low paid industries have since benefited from a wage floor that must be applied equally to all workers, full and part time alike. We would therefore expect discrimination between part time and full time comparators to have decreased since then. This implies that these benefits may be overstated, but the effect cannot be quantified.

Entitlement to non-wage benefits
22. The BMRB survey found that where benefits and entitlements, such as holidays and payment in kind, are offered to staff, the majority of employers provide them equally (pro rata) to part time and full time employees. This is true of employers of any size. In only 12% of cases did establishments with part time employees have any differences in the entitlement to non-wage benefits of part time and full time staff. In many cases this is objectively justified or may arise because people have to serve a certain time to qualify (e.g. enhanced maternity leave). We estimate that the number who stand to benefit from measures to address discrimination in non-wage benefits is about 400,000. We have put a value of £17.6 million on these benefits (see Annex).

Gender impact
23. Women account for 82% of part time employee jobs and 44% of female employees work part time. This implies that these Regulations are likely to have a stronger positive impact for women than for men. The Regulations allow part time workers to compare their current terms and conditions with those of a full time predecessor doing the same job. This is likely to be of particular benefit to women returning from maternity leave. To quantify the impact of this we need to know:

• how many part time workers have a full time predecessor;
  
  
• of these, how many would not otherwise have a full time comparator;
  
  
• of these, how many will be subject to less favourable treatment.

24. Lack of data means that we are unable to estimate the numbers of potential beneficiaries. Generally, we can say that as a result of this, it is likely that there will be more part timers with a full time comparator.

Estimated Compliance Costs

Employers affected
25. Our survey found that the majority of establishments (69%) used part time employees. Of these 42% had full and part time employees doing similar jobs (i.e. 30% of all establishments). The use of part time employees varies considerably between sectors.

Elements of costs
26. We have identified three elements of recurring costs and calculated a range of costs (see Annex for details of calculations).

(a) Pay The majority of employers pay their part time staff the same hourly wage as their full time comparators. Hence the number of employers affected by the Regulations regarding less favourable treatment of part timers will be small. We have calculated above that the benefit to employees of equalising pay is £5.8 million each year. Allowing for non-wage costs such as pension contributions and National Insurance gives a cost to employers of £6.7 million.

(b) Non-wage benefit entitlements Our survey investigated the provision of a large range of benefits including holidays, payments in kind, loans etc. Employers providing benefits to all full time and no part time staff are relatively rare. In only 8% of cases did employers of part time employees with full time comparators report that part time employees were excluded from non-wage benefit entitlements. We estimate that the benefit to employees of equalising non-wage benefits is £17.6 million and the aggregate cost to employers of bringing part time benefit entitlements into line is £20 million.

(c) Right to receive a written statement of reasons for less favourable treatment. The Regulations will give a worker who thinks they have been treated less favourably than another worker the right to ask their employer in writing for a written statement giving the reasons for this treatment. This could place additional compliance costs on businesses in terms of management time. We do not anticipate that numbers would be significant. We assume that, among part time employees who work in establishments with full time comparators, about 2 per 1000 part time employees make such a request (3) and that on average each request takes ½ day of management time to handle. Therefore, we estimate that requests for a written statement would cost employers approximately £0.7 million.

Total recurring costs
27. Adding the three elements together, we estimate that the Regulations could cost employers around £27.4 million a year. All but £4 million of the compliance cost goes towards increasing benefits to employees (in other words, of the £27.4 million cost to employers, £23.4 million goes directly towards increasing the benefits to employees). The Regulations do not impose any new burden of record keeping or require employers to set up new systems - only to include part timers within systems already in place for full time staff. There are no non-recurring costs.

Table 2: Estimates of costs to employers

28. Compliance costs for most employers will be zero. Less than a third of all workplaces employ part timers who work alongside full time comparators. The vast majority of them do not discriminate against their part time employees on either pay or benefit entitlements. Employers that discriminate in terms of pay may face an annual compliance cost of £250 per affected worker. Employers that discriminate on the basis of non-wage benefits may face annual compliance costs of around £50 per affected worker (4).

Business sectors affected

29. The measures in the Regulations will guarantee rights for all part time workers, regardless of whether or not they benefit directly from any single element. However, certain sectors are more likely to be affected by the Directive than others. How a sector is affected will depend on:

(a) the proportion of part time workers in the sector;

(b) the proportion of part time workers with full time comparators;

(c) whether employers in the sector offer benefits;

(d) whether employers in the sector discriminate against their part time workers.

Table 3, drawn from the BMRB survey, provides a guide.

Table 3 Proportion of establishments with at least one difference in non-wage benefits, by industry

30. The table shows the proportion of establishments with at least one difference in non-wage benefits by industry. According to the survey findings, a high proportion of establishments in the financial sector (48%) had some difference in provision, although it should be noted that only 2% of all part time employees work in this sector and only 15% of all employees in this sector work part time. The sector where a high proportion of employees were part time and where a high proportion of employees had a difference in non wage benefits is wholesale and retail. Although agriculture has a high proportion of establishments with a difference in non-wage benefits, these establishments actually make up a negligible proportion of all those establishments affected by the Regulations.

Small Businesses

31. According to the 1998 Labour Force Survey, 31% of all employees in small workplaces work part time, compared with 25% of all employers. However, the BMRB survey found that a relatively high proportion of small establishments did not employ any part time employees.

32. Of those small establishments that did have part time employees, a high proportion did not have full time comparators. However, where there were comparators the survey found that only 10% of smaller establishments had a difference in non-wage benefits, and would therefore have to look at their current arrangements, compared with a third of larger establishments.

Other Costs

Enforcement Costs
33. A part time worker may present a complaint to an Employment Tribunal on the grounds that he or she has been subjected to a detriment in contravention of the Regulations. The Employment Tribunals Service (ETS) and ACAS may therefore have to deal with a few additional Employment Tribunal cases. However, due to the fact that the majority of part time employees are women, some cases related to the unfair treatment of part time employees are currently heard under sex discrimination legislation. These Regulations may therefore effect a transfer of applications from sex discrimination cases to a new part time work jurisdiction and there could even be a reduction in their number. We do not believe that the net number of cases arising specifically from these Regulations will be significant.

Results of Consultations

34. The Directive is the result of negotiation at the European level between the Social Partners. In anticipation of the Regulations the DTI undertook a survey of a representative sample of employers of all sizes and sectors. The purpose of this survey was to identify the extent to which employers currently provide different terms and conditions to their part time employees and the extent to which practices might have to change as a result of any anti-discrimination legislation. The findings for that survey have been used in producing the RIA in conjunction with data from the Labour Force Survey. The RIA has been updated to reflect changes made to the Regulations as a result of the public consultation.

Summary of Costs and Benefits

35. The two main effects of the Regulations will be to increase the pay and non-wage benefits for certain part time workers.

36. These Regulations are estimated to directly benefit at least 400,000 part time employees and give added security to all 6 million part time employees. We estimate that the employees that benefit directly will be better off by a total of £23.4 million per year. This will therefore involve some costs to employers. Total compliance costs are estimated to be £27.4 million per year, all but £4 million of which goes towards increasing benefits to employees. These costs are low in relation to the total wage bill. The table below summarises these estimates.

Table 4: Summary of costs and benefits

37. In addition to these quantified effects, there are some unquantified effects. These include:

• the effect of including all workers and not just employees, which could add up to 5% to compliance costs for employers;
  
  
• the effect of some part timers receiving an occupational pension, which could affect up to 5,000 people (see Annex for calculation);
  
  
• the effect of the provisions for full time female workers returning to work part time from maternity leave.

38. On the other hand, changes made by employers as a result of the National Minimum Wage and the Working Time Regulations may lead to some overestimation of costs and benefits. There is no need for additional record keeping and there are no non- recurring costs.

39. There are also the wider, but unquantified, benefits arising from the security created by the removal of the opportunity for discrimination - so the benefits are much more widely spread than simply the number who might get higher pay and an increase in non wage benefits. The Government believes that the measure is justified on the grounds of fairness and improving the working of the labour market.

Sensitivity Analysis

40. Despite a special survey being commissioned to provide information for this RIA, a number of assumptions have to be made to estimate costs and benefits. Probably the most significant assumption is the proportion of part time employees who have a full time comparator at their workplace. While 60% of all part time employees are based at workplaces where some part timers work alongside full timers in comparable jobs, we have assumed that only a quarter of this group do in fact have a direct comparator. Changing this proportion would change the estimated number of beneficiaries, estimated benefits and costs pro rata e.g. if the proportion with comparators were in fact a half, then costs and benefits would double.

Enforcement, Sanctions, Monitoring and Evaluation

Enforcement
41. A complaint by a worker that they have been treated in a manner that infringes any of the rights conferred by the Regulations may be presented to an Employment Tribunal. If the tribunal finds that a complaint is well founded, it can order the employer to pay compensation or take other steps it considers just and equitable.

Monitoring
42. The DTI and ETS will monitor the cases brought to an Employment Tribunal.

March 2000

Contact:

Ms F Ismail
Employment Relations Directorate 4d
DTI
1 Victoria Street
London SW1H OET
email: fazleen.ismail@irdv.dti.gov.uk

ANNEX

CALCULATIONS

These calculations make extensive use of a survey commissioned by the DTI in 1998. The survey, carried out by BMRB, investigated differences in the terms and conditions of part time employees with comparable full time employees, looking at pay, non-wage benefits and treatment. A full report is to be published shortly.

The Number of Part Time Employees with Full Time Comparators
The survey found that 7 in 10 establishments use part time employees. Of all the workplaces with at least one part time employee, 30% had full time staff doing the same jobs as part time staff, where a comparison of terms and conditions could be made.

It is difficult to translate this figure into the proportion of part time employees who have a direct comparator. We estimate that 60% of part time employees work in establishments where some part time staff work alongside a comparator. The BMRB survey found that in many cases the part time employees were actually performing different tasks compared with their supposed full time comparators - so the proportion of workplaces with at least one part and full time equivalent may be an overestimate. Therefore, we assume that a quarter of these people will actually have a full time comparator. That produces an estimate of 0.9 million part time employees who work alongside someone with a full time contract (60% x ¼ = 15%, 15% x 6 million = 0.9 million).

Pay
Of respondents to the BMRB survey, 30% said that part time employees were paid less than comparable full timers. However, there were a significant number of cases where the respondent was unable to say. Excluding these, in 33% of cases the employer paid part time employees less than pro-rata wages. Translating this into employees, the survey suggests that about 20% of part time employees with a comparator have lower pay.

However, a qualitative follow-up study that specifically examined the issue of pay found that discrimination is far less widespread than the quantitative survey indicates. When questioned in more detail it was found that there were material differences in the jobs of the part time and full time employees (different levels of responsibility and/or experience). The difference in pay therefore may be objectively justified - so would not be affected by the Regulations.

We therefore assume that only one sixth of these part time employees (about 3% of all part time employees) actually are discriminated against. Combined with the LFS that gives 27,000 (3% of 900,000) employees that are paid less than their full time colleagues. To illustrate the effect of this we assume they get a pay increase equal to 5% of the average gross pay for part time employees in the LFS (spring 1999) which gives us £4.10 per week (=0.05 x £82 per week). Total pay is then estimated to increase by £5.8 million (£4.10 x 52 x 27,000).

Employers' labour costs are equal to gross pay (£82 per week) plus employers' NICs and statutory and non-statutory pension contributions. We assume that there is a 5% increase in gross pay for part time employees (0.05 x £82 = £4.10 per week). To this we add the increase in statutory and non-statutory pension contributions estimated to be 16.9% of the increase in gross pay (5) to the increase in employers' labour costs. Therefore the increase in employers' labour costs is estimated to be £6.7 million. (We do not include anything else for other non-wage labour costs as they are considered separately below.)

Non-Wage Benefit Entitlements
The BMRB survey found that 45% of part time employees with a full time comparator had a difference in non-wage benefits. Therefore, of the 0.9 million part time employees with a full time comparator, 400,000 have a difference in non-wage benefits (6). The BMRB survey asked about a range of 22 benefits such as holiday pay available to part time employees and their full time comparators. A total of 1436 benefits were available to a sample of 210 workplaces (covering 230 workgroups i.e. 1.1 workgroups per workplace). That means that a typical non-wage benefits package for a full time comparator consisted of about 6 benefits.

We took the 6 benefits most commonly available to full time comparators and calculated the value of this non-wage benefits package to a part time worker and the cost of the benefits package to an employer.

Notes
a & b We assume that a part time worker on average pay will move from the statutory minimum (4 weeks: either 12 days annual leave and 8 bank holidays or 20 days annual leave and no paid bank holidays) to amount of leave commonly provided for full time employees (4 weeks plus bank holidays). i.e. an increase of 8 days or 1.6 weeks. Benefit to worker is increase in gross wages (£82*1.6 weeks) = £130 and cost to employer is increase in gross wages and non-wage labour costs (£82*1.24*1.6 weeks) = £160. We assume that non-wage labour costs are equal to 24% of gross wages.

c One day at average part time wage rate: benefit to worker = £15 (£82/5) and cost to employer = £20 £82*1.24/5

d We assume a 10% discount on £500 worth of goods per year = £50

e We assume full time employees receive £500 worth of training each year and pro rata this to obtain the cost of training for a part time worker = £250 (0.5*500).

f According to the New Earnings Survey full time employees receive an average of £5 per week in shift premia. The benefit to a full time worker is £240 (£5*48 weeks). The cost to an employer per year, including non-wage labour costs, is £300 (£5*48weeks*1.24) for a full time worker. If we pro rata this for a part time worker the cost is £150 (0.5*£300)

Using the BMRB survey, we estimate that part time employees with a full time comparator are excluded from 8% of this non wage benefit package i.e. a value of £44 to employees and a cost of £50 to employers. Therefore, the value to part time employees of an increase non-wage benefits as a result of the Regulations is £17.6 million (£44*400,000) and the cost to employers is £20 million (400,000*£50).

Pensions
From existing research we know that in some organisations part-timers are not treated equally with respect to pensions. The existing research also indicates that this form of discrimination has been reduced over the past 4 to 5 years especially after the introduction of the 1995 Pensions Act.

From the BMRB study we know that 38% of establishments offer occupational pensions to their employees. We also know from this study that in a majority of cases where a benefit was provided, it was equally provided to full time and part time employees. Of those establishments providing occupational pensions, in 77% of cases they were available to part time staff, and only in 14% of cases they were not available to any part time staff.

Additionally, it is common practice for employees who earn less than the Lower Earnings Limit (LEL) per week to be excluded from occupational pension schemes. We know that 57% of part time employees earn more than the LEL. Therefore, the proportion of part time employees that could benefit from the Regulations with respect to pensions is around 3% (0.38*0.14*0.57) of those with a full time comparator or 30,000. However, as in the case of pay, we apply the assumptions made as a result of the qualitative follow-up study. Therefore, we assume that only one sixth of these part time employees actually have a full time comparator. This gives a figure of 5,000 part time employees (less than 0.1% of all part time employees) that could benefit with respect to pensions as a result of the Regulations.

Although this gives us an approximate measure of those who will benefit from the introduction of the regulation, we can not quantify to costs for business. Occupational pension schemes vary in their value and costs between occupations. To quantify the costs we would need to know not only the value of these pensions but also the occupational distribution of the 5,000 part-time employees benefiting from the regulations with respect to pensions. We do not have information on either of these.

Right to receive a written statement of reasons for less favourable treatment
As an indicator of people's propensity to complain about discrimination, we have based our estimate on the fact that in 1998/99 around 0.7 per 1000 employees submitted Employment Tribunal applications on the grounds of sex and race discrimination. However, asking in writing for a written statement is a less drastic step than going to a tribunal, this may be an under-estimate, and we perform our calculations on the basis that 2 per 1000 part time employees will ask for such a statement. Applying that to the 3.6 million part time employees who work alongside someone with a full time contract, gives 7,200 requests. We assume that a written statement takes on average ½ day of management time, that is a cost of around £98 per statement (7). Many of these requests may be from groups of employees.

For 7,200 statements this implies an aggregate cost of £0.7 million (=£197 x 0.5 x 12,000).

Table A1: Summary of range of costs and benefits

Footnotes

1. Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC.

2. The survey report is due to be published shortly.

3. As an indicator of the propensity to make a complaint, only 0.7 per 1,000 employees make an application to Employment Tribunal on grounds of sex or race discrimination. A request in writing for a written statement is a less drastic step than going to a Tribunal, so this may under-estimate the propensity to ask for a written statement. We therefore perform our calculations assuming that 2 per 1000 part time employees will ask for a statement.

4. See Annex for assumptions and calculations

5. 12.2% employers' NICs + 4.7% non-statutory pension contributions (based on the Labour Cost Survey 1992, Employment Gazette September 1994

6. This is consistent with the BMRB survey finding that 28% of part timr employees worked in establishments where there were full time comparators and a difference in non-wage benefit entitlements. If we assume that 25% of these part timers actually have a full time comparator and a difference this also produces a figure of about 400,000 part timr employees with com-parators who have a difference in non-wage benefits.

7. Based on New Earnings Survey, April 1999. Average gross weekly pay for general managers and administrators in national and local government, large companies and organisations (full-time employees on adult rates) was £792.4. (This includes profit-related pay and other PBR pay and may therefore be an overestimate.) According to the 1992 survey of labour costs, non-pay elements of labour costs were 19.4% of total labour costs so that total labour costs were 24% higher than wages. 1.24 X 792.4 = 982.57 per week => £196.51 per day (on the assumption of a five day working week).

---

| index