Employers do not have to give fixed-term employees the same insurance coverage as permanent staff.
The employment appeal tribunal (EAT) agreed with a previous employment tribunal that it was not a breach of less favourable treatment regulations for an employer to purchase income protection insurance that may not pay out to a fixed-term employee in circumstances where it would to a permanent employee.
Free Representation Unit employment legal officer Michael Reed noted that in the case of Hall v Xerox UK, the insurance provided income protection for employees who were off work for 26 weeks.
But those on fixed-term contracts ceased to be a member of the scheme at the end of their term.
Mr Hall was injured on 12th April 2012 and his contract ended on 20th July. Although his contract was extended, the insurer concluded that he had exited the scheme on the 20th July. He was therefore worse off than a permanent employee.
Reed added that the judge decided it was the insurer's act, not that of the employer, which led to the disadvantage suffered by the claimant.
Enhanced flexibility and greater simplicity, Legal & General’s recently launched Rental Protection Plan
Nearly a fifth have no savings at all
Money causing you stress?
From web designers to hairdressers, dog walkers to plumbers