“Unnecessary Burdens” in the Equality Act?

BIS has published the “Fifth Statement of New Regulations” setting out the timetable for a number of measures which will be implemented in 2013.

 

This will include “removing unnecessary burdens from the Equality Act”, which specifically means removing employers’ potential liability for harassment by a third party and removing the statutory questionnaire procedure. These changes will be implemented in March 2013.

 

The report openly acknowledges that the ‘new culture’ (which presumably means the ‘red tape challenge’) “has resulted in real benefits to businesses”. Well it certainly is of no benefit to workers!

 

This government is eroding employment rights at an unprecedented pace. It has recently announced that it will be halving the consultation period for collective redundancies (of 100 or more employees) from 90 days to 45 days, making it easier to sack employees. It has already changed the required period of service to be able to claim unfair dismissal from 1 year to 2 years, again making it easier to sack people.

 

It has also announced that it intends to proceed with the ridiculous proposal of ‘employee ownership’, despite 92% of responses to its own consultation expressing concerns about the plans.

 

Fortunately, discrimination law is one area that cannot as easily be hit, as most rights are obtained from Europe, but sure enough where rights can be reduced without being in breach of EU requirements, they are being.

 

These two changes will make pursuing a claim more complicated and difficult, meaning ultimately that wronged employees will be put off pursuing a claim.

 

In particular, the removal of the questionnaire procedure will make it even more difficult to prove equal pay cases and indirect discrimination claims, as the questionnaire process was invaluable in obtaining essential information about company statistics and comparators. The government has said that employees will still be able to ask questions in correspondence, but without the threat of an inference of discrimination if there is a failure to reply, how many employers are likely to voluntarily give the requested information? Not many!

 

Toni Haynes - Solicitor

For further information on Employment Rights, please visit our website or call 0113 245 0733 and ask to speak with our Employment Rights team.

How equal is age discrimination?

I was looking back over past notes recently (I do really need to get out more!) when I came across a talk that I had delivered around the time that the Age Discrimination Regulations were introduced. Within that talk I discussed the fact that unlike the other forms of discrimination direct age discrimination could be objectively justified. I noted that this had been very unpopular due to concerns that it could enable employers to avoid liability for age discriminatory acts. It was hoped at the time that “objective justification” would be interpreted strictly.

Over three years on, it would seem that both our domestic courts and the European Court of Justice will, in fact, readily find objective justification thus enabling an employer to defend age discriminatory behaviour.

In MacCulloch v ICI Plc and Loxley v BAE Systems Limited the EAT held that the two contractual redundancy schemes did discriminate on the grounds of age, but that the discrimination could be objectively justified. In MacCulloch the EAT endorsed the tribunal’s view that rewarding loyalty and encouraging turnover of staff were capable of being legitimate aims that might be furthered by increased payments to older workers.

In Loxley the EAT accepted that excluding an employee from a redundancy scheme because he was entitled to benefits under the pension scheme, could also, potentially, be objectively justified.

In Pulham & Others v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham the EAT held that unlike in the case of sex discrimination and equal pay, age discrimination pay protection arrangements are always potentially justifiable.

In Europe the ECJ have upheld the German Government’s policy of barring anyone over the age of 30 from applying for the fire service (Wolf v Stadt Frankfurt am Main) The ECJ accepted that older people would be less likely to be physically capable of fighting fires.

The ECJ has also upheld the German Government’s age limit of 68 applied to dentists practicing in the national health service on the grounds that it enabled younger dentists to move into that sector (Petersen v Berfungasusschuss für Zahnärzte für den Beezirk Westfalen-Lippe).

It would seem that it is in fact fairly easy for an employer to provide a reason why discrimination should not be deemed unlawful. Whilst this does sometimes benefit employees, my concern is that what it in fact suggests is that age discrimination is perhaps not perceived to be as serious as other types of discrimination. The explanation for that could be that it is the only type of discrimination likely to affect us all at one stage or another.

I think that most people would also agree that there is nothing objectionable in principle about older, long-serving employees receiving a better deal in a redundancy situation.

The danger however, especially in the light of the two above ECJ cases, is that objective justification enables preconceived ideas about older people to perpetuate. Why should it be assumed that all older people (and I am talking anyone over 30) is not fit enough to be a fire fighter? Surely a non-discriminatory fitness test could resolve the issue. Why should older individuals be forced out of a job to allow a younger person to step in? How does that tally with our ageing population? The issue, I guess, is as always a question of balance. But at the moment it seems to me that the balance is not being successfully struck.
For further information, please contact our Employment Rights department on 0113 2450733