All posts by employmentwrites

Court of Appeal Restricts Effectiveness of Trade Union Negotiation

In 2002 the European Court of Human Rights decided the case of Wilson v UK and found that UK trade union legislation was contrary the Article 11 of the  European Convention on Human Rights – in particular, at paragraph 48 of Wilson the ECHR found that

by permitting employers to use financial incentives to induce employees to surrender important union rights, the respondent State has failed in its positive obligation to secure the enjoyment of the rights under Article 11 of the Convention. This failure amounted to a violation of Article 11, as regards both the applicant trade unions and the individual applicants.

The UK governments response to the judgement was to introduce new legislation in 2004 which is set out in sections 145A to 145F of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidated) Act 1992. 

Restrictions on Inducements to Union Members

Section 145B of the Act is the specific section that addresses the prohibition of inducements by an employer to its workers to have terms and conditions directly negotiated with the employer and worker independently of the trade union.

Section 145B introduces a right to individual trade union members of a trade union who is recognised by the employer for collective bargaining purposes (or by a union seeking to be recognised) not to be have a contractual offer be made directly to the worker would when accepted have what is called the ‘prohibited result’ and this result was the employer’s main or sole purpose when making the offer.

The section does however provide some limited circumstances, in section 145D.

The Basic Facts in Kostal

There has been very little caselaw on section 145B. As a union representative there has only been one time I have had occasion to consider it as a possible course of action. It’s prominence however rose with the decision of the EAT in 2017.

The basic facts in Kostal was that Unite was recognised by the employer for collective bargaining purposes and was negotiating with the employer about the pay award. The union and the employer did not reach an agreement but the offer went to a membership ballot and 80% of union members rejected the offer.

Disappointed with the outcome of the union ballot the employer decided that it would make precisely the same offer to each employee directly and that those who accepted, and those only, would receive not only the pay award but a Christmas bonus, those who refused would not.

In the new year the employer also wrote directly to every worker who refused the direct contract change offer and advised that that the employer was considering dismissing those workers who did not agree. The employer in making that offer made no reference to this being a dismissal and re-engagement on new terms dismissal.

The EAT and ET both found the purpose of the employer’s actions was to undermine collective bargaining. The Employment Tribunal itself commented that

it is not permissible for an employer to abandon collective negotiation when it does not like the result of a ballot, approach the employees individually with whom it strikes deals and then seek to show its commitment to collective bargaining by securing a collective agreement which is little more than window dressing – having destroyed the union’s mandate on the point in question in the meantime. In other words, if there is a Recognition Agreement which includes collective bargaining, the employer cannot drop in and out of the collective process as and when that suits its purpose.

Unfortunately, the effect of the Court of Appeal’s judgement in Kostal, independent of the issues in section 145D is that employer’s has been licence to do just that.

In the Court of Appeal the court (45) noted and appear to have accepted that the decision to make individual offers meant that it was “exceptionally improbable that the company did not intend to circumvent the collective bargaining process when it made the offers: in effect (eliminating the double negative) they found, and were entitled to find, that Kostal’s purpose was to circumvent the collective bargaining process.” And yet, even though none of the caveats to this right in section 145D applied, that this was in large part the issue in Wilson, accepted this description but still left open the question of whether the prohibited result was engaged. 

The prohibited reason is set out in 145B(2) and states that prohibited result is “that the workers’ terms of employment, or any of those terms, will not (or will no longer) be determined by collective agreement negotiated by or on behalf of the union.”

One would think that the fact that by reason of the employer’s decision to avoid negotiating any change of contract on the yearly pay settlement with the union, even if they were willing to do so in the future if the union were more ‘compliant’ the “will not” provision would have been met. But the Court of Appeal had other ideas.

Court of Appeal

In it decision last week the Court of Appeal substantially restricted the circumstances in which a union member will be able to allege unlawful inducements to forego collective bargaining when an employer does not like the negotiating position a recognised trade union adopts to two situations in situations where it is not alleged that the employer is not motivated by express anti-union motives.

First, where a union seeks recognition but the employer makes an offer that would mean that their terms and conditions would not be subject to a collective bargaining unit.

Second, where the employer in making the offer intends to to permanently remove the term or condition from collective bargaining.

If inducement is not for one of these situations then the decision is not a prohibited reason, this would even apply where the employer is motivated by a desire to weaken the union’s bargaining position, as on the summary appears to be the motive of the employer in this case.

The rationale of the decision was that although the literal reading of the statute advanced by Unite was possible this cannot have been Parliament’s intention because that would give a veto over any changes and Parliament cannot have intended that. I am unpersuaded that is really the case on the issue of veto, why not? It is surely proper that in bilateral negotiations upon which agreement is necessary   that each party have a veto. And, besides which, as the initial tribunal noted it is not as though the employer is wholly without options, if the terms is truly necessary, it is open on an employer to serve notice on a dismissal and re-engagement basis which so long as the reason is a reasonable one (within the band of reasonable responses) it is unlikely attract compensatory liability to the employer.

Kostal is a dangerous and anti-union decision. It is not hard to see this will be abused and it is not as though there is a swell of tribunal claims on unlawful inducement grounds that the decision is quelling. Instead the Court of Appeal has given licence to employers to intermittent disavowal of collective bargaining to push through changes that are beneficial to the employers and against the interests of workers. This is acceptable so long as this disavowal and avoidance is ‘temporary.

And the Court’s refrain that this is all OK because the workers can always strike (leaving aside that new strike laws make that more and more a hypothetical right only) it is a strange argument that effectively encourages unions to undertake industrial action and increase industrial unrest.

It is certainly welcome that Unite have already announced that they have sought permission to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. It may be that the case is also ripe for a further challenge, if necessary, to the ECHR on Article 11 grounds.

 

 

Veganism and discrimination

Last year the BBC ran a story on what it described as a ‘landmark’ case on whether veganism, or more specifically, ethical veganism was a religion or belief for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.

The factual background to the case is that the Mr Casamitjana was dismissed by his employer, the League Against Cruel Sports, for what the employer deemed to be gross misconduct. Mr Casamitjana however has (I assume) alleged that the dismissal was discriminatory, the exact label upon which the discrimination is alleged to occur is unclear but I would imagine it is a complaint of direct discrimination given the employer’s statement to the press that “Mr Casamitjana is seeking to use his veganism as the reason for his dismissal.”

Landmark?

Whilst the BBC (and Mr Casamitjana for that matter) seem to promote the case as landmark I really do not see it as such.  The protected characteristic of religion of belief in the Equality Act is broad and includes philosophical beliefs of which ethical veganism is potentially surely one whether there has been a case considering this or not.  The test for whether a philosophical belief is covered by the protected characteristic of religion or belief is set out in the EAT’s decision in Grainger PLC v Nicholson [2009]. Grainger, which itself concerned the alleged protected belief of climate change and the environment, sets out that five questions need to be answered affirmatively, and if they are then the belief is protected:

(i) The belief must be genuinely held.
(ii) It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
(iii) It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
(iv) It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
(v) It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others

What is noteworthy is that it appears likely that the EAT’s decision takes the scope of religion and belief discrimination much further than the then New Labour government that introduced it intended – for example, in 2010 after the EHRC issued guidance that veganism was probably a protected belief the Government Equality Office objected to this expansion saying

the government did not share the view that climate change or veganism were religious beliefs; however, the interpretation was a matter for courts. The spokesman said: “The Equality Bill does not change the existing definition of religion or belief and the Government does not think that views or opinions based on scientific – or indeed on political – theories can be considered to be akin to religious beliefs or philosophical beliefs. Nor was it the intention in introducing the legislation that such beliefs should be covered (source).

Be that as it may the broader approach has indeed been accepted by the courts and it is not hard to see that ethical veganism is quite capable of meeting these five Grainger tests. Indeed, the EHRC in its Religion and belief guidance is explicit that “Beliefs such as humanism, pacifism, vegetarianism and the belief in man-made climate change are all protected.” There is no sensible reason why vegetarianism should be a protected belief and veganism is not.

Again, quoting from the BBC’s piece, Peter Daly the solicitor for Mr Casamitjana explains that if his client is “successful, we will achieve a judgment which formally recognises the protected status of ethical veganism and which could then be used as the basis to combat discrimination against vegans in employment, in the provision of goods and services, and in education. This is therefore a landmark case.”

Frankly, whether a tribunal has ever formally recognised ethical veganism as a protected belief or not it is little more than PR to describe this as ‘landmark’ the fact that according to Mr Casamitjana’s own crowdfunding appeal this apparently ‘contentious’ issue has now been conceded by the employer.

What seems more likely is that the real battle will be not on whether the treatment was because of the protected belief itself or because of conduct that arguably grew out of that belief similar to the recent Court of Appeal judgement in Kuteh upholding the fairness of the dismissal of a Christian nurse for inappropriate proselytism during work hours.

Protected Belief

To continue with the vegan theme I note that the Daily Mirror is reporting today on demands to outlaw vegan discrimination, with Alex Monaco a solicitor being quoted as saying:

If you were Jewish or Muslim and told to get a round of bacon sandwiches in, no one would bat an eyelid if you refused. But if you’re vegan and refused to buy a pint of milk to make tea because you believe the dairy industry is torturing cows, then you would be laughed out of the kitchen. Employers should have a duty to ensure vegans are protected at work and are offered options. The ultimate aim is to get the law changed so that the Equality Act includes vegans.”

I have to confess it does strike me as a strange demand since, as should be clear, there is no reason that claims of discrimination at work on the basis of veganism cannot already, on the current law, be pursued meaning there is no need to “get the law changed” at all. The mission is already accomplished!

The Effective Date of Termination (Dismissal)

In order to make a valid unfair dismissal complaint an employee needs to begin the employment tribunal claims process (nearly always by starting the ACAS Early Conciliation process) within three months of their effective date of termination (EDT). Therefore, establishing what the EDT is among the primary duties of any union rep when advising whether a member has a good unfair dismissal claim.

With the harsh approach to time limits the employment tribunals apply with their “reasonably practicable” test the sad fact is that many many substantively good employment tribunals have been dismissed because of a miscalculation of an EDT.

The general rule is that an employee EDT is the date the dismissal is communicated to the employee. As I have discussed previously the Supreme Court in Gisda Cyf (2010) clarified that the EDT is effective only at the time when the notice of termination is either received and read by the employee or would reasonably have been read. This means that calculating the EDT can be more difficult (but helpful to employees) because the EDT is judged by more than just, for example, what date a letter was sent.

As a rule of thumb however it is always best in cases where a dismissal has been first communicated by post to err on the side of caution and calculate the EDT from the date of the letter, that way any claim will always be in time.

In the remainder of this post I want to offer some brief technical situations in addition to the issue of when a letter was read where the EDT may differ from a date calculated from a date a letter was sent.

First, and most commonly, if an employee is informed in a face to face meeting that they have been dismissed and that is followed up by a letter confirming this then the date that needs to be used is the date the employee was informed.

Second, if a union representative of the employee (or a solicitor acting for an employee) is informed of the dismissal before the employee and then informed the employee then it is this date, and not the date the employee is informed of the dismissal directly by the employer that should be used as the starting point for calculations. This principle was set down in the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision in Robinson v Bowskill & Ors [2013] UKEAT 0313_12_2011. In that case an employee was dismissed in her absence on 6 July and an email to the claimant’s solicitor was sent informing them of this that same day. The next day (7 July) the solicitor told the employee what the email said and the following day (8 July) the employee received a dismissal letter from her former employer. The case turned on whether the EDT was 6 July (the date the solicitor was informed), 7 July the date the solicitor informed the employee, or 8 July (the date the employer directly informed the employee). Applying the Gisda Cyf case referred to above the EAT decided the employee still needed to directly know of the dismissal but it did not matter that it was the solicitor whom had told her.

Third, where a letter is is a dismissal letter giving a period of notice then unless there is a clear contractual provision to the contrary then the notice period should begin on the day after the letter was sent, not the day of the letter. This was set out in the EAT decision in Wang v University Of Keele [2010] UKEAT 0223_10_0804. For example, if an employee receives and reads a letter dated 8 June 2019 giving him one moths notice then adding that one month would appear to give an EDT date of 8 July 2019.  However, applying the principle in Wang that the notice period starts the following day, namely 9 June 2019, means the actual date of dismissal would be one day later on 9 July 2019.

Finally, an employee is often dismissed and told not to attend work during the notice period. Here the question of when the EDT is will be very case specific. If the employee is dismissed immediately and is given a sum to pay for the sums she would have received during her notice period then the date should be calculated from the date of the dismissal decision. However, if the employee is simply asked to stay at home for the notice period then this is likely to still be pre-dismissal work and so the EDT will be the date that ends.

The most important advice on EDT remains as it was stated at the beginning of this post however. If the EDT is unclear it is best to assume the date is the earliest one possible.

Banter?

Section 26(1) of the Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful for a person to subject another person to unwanted conduct that is related to a protected characteristic so long as that conduct has the purpose or effect  of violating the recipient’s dignity or creating an offensive, humiliating, hostile or degrading environment.

Whether conduct has that effect is an objective decision on the part of the employment tribunal but one, under section 26(4) of the 2010 Act, in which three factors must be considered: i) how the recipient perceived the conduct, ii) other circumstances of the case, and iii) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

This was the issue in the recent case of  Evans v Xactly Corporation Ltd [2018] UKEAT 0128_18_1508. The claimant, who had links with the travelling community, brought a claim of harassment related to race on the basis of comments directed to him whilst at work that he was “a fat ginger pikey.” Pikey is a pejorative term term related to the Irish traveller community (some background from the BBC website is here).

In the judgement (which relates just to a permission to appeal application) the EAT notes that the employment tribunal “entirely understood that on the face of it the “fat ginger pikey” comment is a derogatory, demeaning, unpleasant and a potentially discriminatory and harassing comment to make.” Indeed, exactly the same type of language in other contexts has been found to be racially aggravated criminal conduct.

However, despite this, the ET found that in the circumstances, including that the comment was made by a friend of the claimant’s and in a context of frequent other insulting comments by multiple comments from other parties that the comments did not amount to harassment.   It is a decision the EAT endorsed. This is because, applying the previous EAT decision in Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal [2009] UKEAT_0458_08 that set out that “Dignity is not necessarily violated by things said or done which are trivial or transitory, particularly where it should have been clear that any offence was unintended.”

On that basis given the facts it is perhaps understandable on the application of section 26(4) of the 2010 Act that the tribunal reached the view that the conduct vis a vis the claimant was reciprocated and ‘friendly’ and so not undermining of dignity (although perhaps it would have been different if another employee had complained) even though in most cases such conduct clearly would be.

Still, I find the decision troublesome. The notion that ostensibly racist comments should not (on a liability basis) be deemed to be unwanted because there was no complaint seems to unjustly shift the burden to the victim to prove they were unwanted and injurious to one’s dignity. Elsewhere this same issue was addressed in respect of alleged sexualised banter/harassment in Munchkins Restaurant Ltd & Anor v. Karmazyn & Ors [2010] UKEAT 0359_09_2801. In that case a number of complainants alleged they had been subject to sexual harassment at work in the form of discussion about their sex lives, with which it was acknowledged they had participated in.

The employer in that case adopted a defence that the claimant’s non-complaint and participation showed this was not unwanted conduct. It was a defence the EAT entirely disregarded (para 23):

One of the lay members of this Tribunal has observed that there are many situations in life where people will put up with unwanted or even criminal conduct which violates their personal dignity because they are constrained by social circumstances to do so. A classic example, she points out, is that of the battered wife who for the sake of the children may remain at home permitting herself to be subject to violence, none of which she wishes, but all of which she endures because there is a greater benefit in what takes place. But it does not make the violence right. Putting up with it does not make it welcome, or less criminal. It is therefore not completely beyond the scope of reason to think that women in this particular situation should behave as they did. As to initiating conversation it is explained in the passages we have cited by the Tribunal as being a defensive move on behalf of the Claimants, enabling them to divert much of the intentions of Mr Moss from the intrusive personal questioning which otherwise would have taken place as to their own sexual preferences, habits and contacts.

There is certainly some evidence that the claimant in Evans was in a vulnerable situation with respect to the security of his employment that is in some sense analogous to the situation in Munchkins in which the claimants’ participation in offensive conduct was seen as a defence mechanism.

More pertinently however the Equality Act is legislation aimed as a social as well as legal purpose. What Evans case shows is that that conduct that will widely, and rightly, be held to be offensive and derogatory conduct related to race can, because of an ingrained workplace culture of prejudice, is thereby deemed to be lawful conduct. Can that be right? I wonder if a preferable approach would be to mark out such conduct as unlawful whilst allowing the question of what is just and equitable in terms of remedy very much open such that if, as the tribunal appeared to decide in Evans, there was no significant offence caused and ‘he gave as good as he got’ then only nominal damages should be awarded?

The Right to Accompaniment and Unfair Dismissal

I have discussed the right of accompaniment on this blog before in the context of the worker’s right under section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. One component of that right is an explicit right that if a worker’s chosen companion at a formal grievance of disciplinary meeting is unavailable then the worker can put forward another time and date within five working days of the meeting and the employer is normally required to accommodate that alternative time. If they do not then a worker could pursue a tribunal claim for that specific breach but also potentially that that failure also made the dismissal unfair.

In the context of this relatively common situation the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Talon Engineering Ltd v Smith [2018] IRLR 1104 EAT  offers a helpful clarification.

The relevant facts of the case were that the worker (Smith) was accused of misconduct and was invited to attend a disciplinary meeting. Mrs Smith wanted to be accompanied by her Unite representative and informed her employer of this. However, the union representative was unavailable for two weeks and suggested a three dates date for a meeting. This was not therefore a request for an adjournment under section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 as the proposed date was more than five working days in the future.

The employer refused to defer the meeting until the rep was available and, because of that refusal, Mrs Smith refused to participate in the dismissal hearing. Mrs Smith was consequently summarily dismissed.

The EAT upheld the employment tribunal’s decision that the even though there had been no breach of Mrs Smith’s rights under section 10 of the Employment Rights Act 1999 it did not follow that the decision to refuse the adjournment request was fair for the purposes of the different unfair dismissal test in section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. In the particular circumstances the refusal of the adjournment made the dismissal unfair.

Of course, this does not mean the employer must always agree to an adjournment if a rep is unavailable but it does show that the knee-jerk reaction of employers such as that displayed in Talon  to refuse any adjournment that does not meet the section 10 minimum requirements can run an employer into difficulties. Talon is a useful case for a rep to be aware of to equip them to  question such knee-jerk reactions.

ECJ up the ante on Working Time Records

While the UK remains a member of the EU the decisions of the ECJ on employment law will be binding on UK employers/the Government (depending on the circumstances). Indeed, as I have discussed before, even after the departure the decided cases of the ECJ are likely to be binding after Brexit.

Last week the ECJ promulgated its decision in the case of Confederación Sindical de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO) v Deutsche Bank SAE , a case which  brought by a Spanish Trade Union. The basis of the case was that CCOO asserted that to comply with its Working Time Directive obligations an employer must record all the time that an employee worked. If it did not then how can the employer show it has taken all necessary steps to ensure its workers were not working excessive hours? The court heard evidence that 54% of overtime that was worked was not recorded by employers.

The ECJ found agreed with the CCOO’s arguments and, in a key passage, noted that:

The classification of hours as ‘overtime’ presupposes that the amount of time worked by each worker concerned is known and therefore measured beforehand. The requirement to record only overtime hours worked does not therefore provide workers with an effective means of ensuring, first, that the maximum weekly working time laid down by Directive 2003/88 — which includes overtime hours — is not exceeded and, second, that the minimum daily and weekly rest periods provided for by that directive are observed in all circumstances. In any event, that requirement is not capable of compensating for the lack of a system which, as regards workers who have not consented to work overtime hours, could guarantee actual compliance with rules concerning, inter alia, maximum weekly working time.

The effect of the case is that in order to comply with the Working Time Directive and employer must have  an effective system to monitor all working time of an employee, including all overtime, whether paid or unpaid.

In a UK context the Working Time Regulations (which give effect to the Working Time Directive) require an employer to maintain “adequate” records. It is clear that this should now be interpreted in line with the ECJ’s judgement here and that if all paid or unpaid overtime is not recorded then the records are not adequate. The Health and Safety Executive have responsibility for Regulation 9 (in which the record keeping requirement is set out).

For trade unions it strikes me this decision is provides an opportunity to press for better consideration on the amount of ‘off the books’ work an employer’s workers undertake. The TUC already have a work your proper hours day but this allows unions to lobby employers to ensure that these records are maintained and shared with recognised unions. Not only will this assist in arguing for properly staffed workplaces but could, conceivably, also in the right cases also form the basis of so unlawful deduction of wages claims.

It is certainly the case that in many areas the actual work an worker does – whether paid or out of hours and even on holiday periods – exceeds that which they are contracted to do. This requirement to record all hours potentially provides unions with an organising opportunity to resist the long hours culture.

 

 

 

Direct Discrimination: Defences

It is a couple of months since I promised the last post in my brief series on direct discrimination with a summary on an employer’s defence to direct discrimination claims. Life got in the way, etc.

But first a recap,  section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 sets out that that no employer can treat a worker less favourably because of a protected characteristic than they would treat another person who did not share that protected characteristic. A protected characteristic is one of the following: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation. When they do so they directly discriminate the employee.

It is commonly said that with the exception of direct age discrimination there is no defence to direct discrimination. With the exception of the statutory defence which is only rarely successful (and is summarised below) and the special defence available in age discrimination complaints (also summarised below) this is strictly correct but it is also misleading. The fact is direct discrimination cases are hard to prove and the absence of any proportionality defence means that the battleground is on whether the elements of direct discrimination are met. What in fact is meant by the claim of there being no defence is that where direct discrimination is found there is no justification defence (as there is on most other types of discrimination claim. In no particular order, the 10 defenses I have thought of (there may well be more) are:

1. Proportionality

Unlike indirect discrimination claims an employer has no defence that their conduct was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This is not a legal definition but I often view this as a ‘this is not an ideal situation but it is the least bad one we could implement’ type scenario. That is, however, unless the protected characteristic engaged is that of age. In which case, section 13(2) of the Equality Act 2010 specifies that treating an employee less favourably because of age is in fact lawful so long as the conduct is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Whilst the language used is the same as used in elsewhere in the Equality Act decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) have severely limited the scope of this defence. A legitimate aim for the purposes will now be a social policy objective and therefore, especially for private employers, this will be a difficult defence to mount. The Supreme Court has confirmed the somewhat niche nature of this defence in Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes [2012]. In fact, even in the case of public employers this has been a difficult test to meet. Earlier this year the Court of Appeal (the decision is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court) decided in  The Lord Chancellor & Anor v McCloud & Ors [2018] that a government implemented pension change that treated older workers more favourably (in order to soften the blow of the changes of those nearing retirement following a TUC recommendation) was indeed directly discriminatory.

2. Unconnected reason 

A common misconception is that the Equality Act is designed to create fairness in the workplace. I would certainly be in favour of such legislation but the Equality Act does not meet this need. The Equality Act only protects an employee from unwanted conduct by an employer or its agents  that is related to a protected characteristic. The next defences is rooted in this misconception.

The unconnected reason defence is possibly the most common defence. In an direct discrimination complaint an employee will need to show that there is a protected characteristic engaged and that there has been less favourable treatment compared to a comparator.

If a female employee and male colleague each apply for a promotion but the male colleague is successful in being offered the job then the unsuccessful candidate may well feel she has been directly discriminated against. In this case the protected characteristic (sex) and the less favourable treatment (the refusal of promotion) are clear. But there is a third step the employee would need to meet, namely that the reason for the unfavourable treatment was because of the her sex.

An employer faced with such a claim would likely want to argue that while the employee certainly was treated less favourably this had nothing to do with her sex. Instead, it is because the male candidate was simply better suited to the job for reasons unconnected with the protected characteristic, for example he has performed the same role for a competitor and so has better experience. If they can persuade a tribunal that this different reason was the reason for the treatment then the complaint will be unfounded.

This defence can also have a more sinister side. Even if an employee is treated less favourably for an unreasonable  reason this will not be actionable so long as that reason is connected to a protected characteristic. So, to return to the hypothetical example above, if while driving to the interview the unsuccessful candidate unknowingly cut up the interviewing manager causing an accident, and the manager recognised the employee as the culprit and decided to appoint the other candidate in a pique of revenge then that too would be a defence and make the claim unactionable if a tribunal were to accept that account.

In either scenario if the reason for the treatment is unconnected to the protected characteristic then the employer will be able to defeat any direct discrimination claim.

3. Equally Bad

The second way unfairness is beside the point in a direct discrimination defence is by way of what is colloquially called the bastard defence.

Remember, one of the components of a direct discrimination complaint is that because of a protected characteristic an employee has been treated less favourably (i.e., worse) because of that protected characteristic.

Consider the following hypothetical defence statement:

“The truth of the matter is that we are very bad employers. We work our workers to the bone, disregard all health and safety regulations, we always pay our workers late as that delay generates extra income for the company and we will dismiss anyone who talks about raising a complaint or of unionising; we accept unreservedly that our treatment of the claimant has been reprehensible and even unlawful. However, that treatment has no relation whatsoever to the claimed protected characteristic – the reality is we are an equal opportunities employer in that we treat every worker, whatever their background, equally poorly.”

The defence is certainly not going to win the employer any Public Relations awards and may well leave an employer open to other legal claims but insofar as a direct discrimination claim goes if the tribunal accepts that the employer really does treat everyone equally poorly then (with the exception of certain maternity/pregnancy complaint) the employer is likely to successfully defeat any direct discrimination complaint.

It is arguable that this applies even when the conduct complained of does relate to a protected characteristic. For example, to slightly alter the facts of a 2001 Employment Tribunal  case, suppose a Jewish employee was required (with other colleagues who did not share the same protected characteristic) to wear a Nazi uniform. This is manifestly offensive, unfair, and derogatory conduct that has no basis in any workplace but, on a direct discrimination front, it is arguable that the employer’s defence that this was applied to everyone equally may well be successful because the employee was treated the same as the other employees who did not share that protected characteristic.

Thankfully, were such a situation to arise again the fact there is now no need for a comparator in harassment cases mean if direct discrimination is not available a claim could be pursued on harassment grounds under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, or even fashioned as an indirect discrimination complaint.

4. Occupationally required

This is not common but Schedule 9, part 1(1) of the Equality Act allows the discrimination to occur where a job holder needs to be of a certain protected characteristic. In such case the proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim test is used to assess whether this requirement is reasonable. This is rarely appropriate but could be seen as reasonable in situations such as where a rape victim advisory role is required to be female or where a church’s outreach worker must share the faith of the employer (i.e a Methodist outreach worker should be a Methodist).

5. Disability

In a similar manner the Equality Act places an obligation to make adjustments for disabled workers to avoid or mitigate any disadvantage arising from their disability. This requirement has been found to include, in certain circumstances, an obligation to treat the employee more favourably than their peers.

Because in direct discrimination there is now no need to show that the reason for the treatment being applied for was because of their protected characteristic but simply because of a protected characteristic an enterprising employee who had not been given, for example, a reduced caseload when his disabled colleague had as a reasonable adjustment could claim he was being directly discriminated. The argument would be that he was being treated less favourable (higher workload) than his colleague because of disability (namely his colleague’s disability) .

Fortunately section 13(3) of the Equality Act 2010 specifies that if “the protected characteristic is disability, and B is not a disabled person, A does not discriminate against B only because A treats or would treat disabled persons more favourably than A treats B.” The result of someone who is not disabled is being treated less favourably than a disabled person because of disability then that will mean the employee will have no claim.

6. No Shifting Burden

Along with the unconnected reason defense this is the most important and common defence. In an earlier post I outlined the burden of proof test in direct discrimination cases that is found in section 136 of the Equality Act. If a claimant cannot satisfy this test then, simply put, the employer will successfully defend the case and there will be no finding of discrimination.

In practice this means that the employee must be able to bring to the tribunal evidence that, in the absence of any other explanation, the less favourable treatment was because of the protected characteristic.  For the employee this is frequently a very difficult task as employers are unlikely to want to volunteer information that would show that the reason for their treatment is related to a protected characteristic.

It will very often be that the employer’s best chance of defeating a claim is to argue that the employee has not shown evidence that points to the reason for the conduct complained of being because of the protected characteristic and so the employer has no case to answer.

7. No material causation

The seventh reason is not common but is a strategy that minimises the significance of conduct that is related to a protected characteristic. In an earlier post causation in direct discrimination was discussed and the case of Nagarajan was considered.  In Nagarajan the House of Lords recognised that decisions are often made for multiple rather than just one reason and that in terms of direct discrimination claims the fact that, for example, a decision was made for one reasonable reason and one prohibited reason caused by a protected characteristic is sufficient to establish that the decision was because of a protected characteristic. This is a helpful decision that makes it more difficult for employers to cover discriminatory conduct under a blanket of reasonable business reasons.

However,  Nagarajan still allowed a decision that is tainted by discrimination to avoid liability for direct discrimination. To recall, the relevant passage of the decision in Nagarajan (which was a race discrimination case) is “Discrimination may be on racial grounds even though it is not the sole ground for the decision. A variety of phrases, with different shades of meaning, have been used to explain how the legislation applies in such cases: discrimination requires that racial grounds were a cause, the activating cause, a substantial and effective cause, a substantial reason, an important factor. No one phrase is obviously preferable to all others, although in the application of this legislation legalistic phrases, as well as subtle distinctions, are better avoided so far as possible. If racial grounds or protected acts had a significant influence on the outcome, discrimination is made out.”

If a protected characteristic were established as a reason for less favourable treatment but not as one that had a significant influence on the outcome then the appear may have a defence on this basis. For example, a racist manager would have dismissed a worker for proven misconduct but, the fact that the employee is black, meant that the manager found this a much easier decision than would otherwise have been the case even though the outcome is the same. This is in effect a different angle on the bastard defence.

Given the purpose of the legislation is to combat discriminatory conduct in UK workplaces it is an interesting question whether this approach, which effectively does not prohibit prejudicial conduct in employment situations so long as they have limited practical effect, is the right course of action rather than, as is the case in indirect discrimination cases (see Lady Hale’s judgement in Essop v Home Office) allowing nominal or no damages in cases where the the discriminatory conduct had no affect on the claimant. The latter having the advantage of at least marking out discrimination as an unlawful act.

8. Isolated occurrences

It is frequently the case that in direct discrimination cases an employee will complain of a series of issues whereby they allege they have been treated less favourably.

For example, a claimant may allege that

  • On 5 January 2019 she was given a poor performance review by her manager and this was because she was disabled
  • On 6 February 2019 she was given accused of misconduct by a company director and he initiated a misconduct investigation. She does not believe the misconduct investigation would have happened if she were not Black.
  • On 30 April 2019 she is dismissed for misconduct by the company director. She does not believe the misconduct investigation would have happened if she were not Black.
  • On 5 May 2019 HR refused her an employment reference, again she believes this is because  she is black.

As in most employment tribunal claims a claim for must be initiated within three months of the think being complained of. If on 6 May 2019 the claimant begins Employment Tribunal  proceedings only two of the four claims would be within three months and it is likely the employer would seek to strike out the first two claims (because they occurred before 7 February 2019). This is of course a frequent and in my view perverse consequence of UK employment law in that an employee, even if they are trying to resolve issues with the employer, must initiate a claim within three months to guarantee their claim will be considered.

An employee can of course argue that it is just and equitable for all the claims to be heard but this is at the discretion of the employment judge and is far from guaranteed. In this scenario an employee would be likely to argue that section 123(3) comes to their aid. This provides that when conduct continues over a period of time all the issues can be raised so long as the last incidence was within three months. However, the law on continuing act is complex and will consider the extent to which all the events are related, who was involved, whether they are all related to the same claim type.

For the employer this often be a major battleground to argue that if not all then as much of the claim is out if time and not part of a continuing act and by doing so exclude as much of the claim as possible from being considered. To return to the example above, since the misconduct investigation and dismissal are clearly related  and involve both the same claim and same managers there is a good chance that that will be a continuing act meaning that even though the event occurred 3 months or more before the dismissal it is under section 123(3) treated as still being in time (as was the case recently in Hale v Brighton & Sussex NHS Trust). However, the poor performance review  by a different person for performance issues and because of a different characteristic is likely to be excluded, even if this is a case whereby there is very strong evidence that the claim would succeed.

9. Not Responsible

Sometimes an employee can be subject to outrageous and manifestly discriminatory behaviour even at work or in other contexts that would not have arisen but for their work and yet still find the employer defending a claim against them. This can occur in two types of context.

First, there may be cases where an employee is subject to, for example, racist abuse from a customer or some other person with whom the employer does not have any sort of formal or contractual relationship.  The fact that that conduct occurred at work does not mean that the employer will be liable (although it might be, depending on the circumstances).  This can be seen in the deeply unfair case of Kemeh v MOD [2014]. In a place of work the claimant was subjected to racial abuse by a kitchen worker. However, the kitchen worker was not employed by the MOD but by a subcontractor, Sodexo. The MOD accepted that the abuse had happened, that it was indeed racial, but nevertheless denied liability since they were only liable for their own employees, not other employees even if they provided services to the employer.

Second, Section 109 of the Equality places a significant burden on employer that they will be liable for anything discriminatory done by an employee “in the course of employment”  – effectively this means that anything done by an employee which is discriminatory the employer will be responsible for. Section 109(3) even goes so far as to say that it “does not matter whether that thing is done with the employer’s or principal’s knowledge or approval.” In practice this means nearly everything done by a manager at work will mean as well as they individually being responsible (section 110 of the Equality Act) the employer will also be liable. This has been found to apply even to conduct that occurs outside the workplace in work related social gatherings – see Chief Constable of the Lincolnshire Police v Stubbs [1999].

However, it remains the case that there is a limit and that it is possible for discriminatory issues to arise that would not have occurred but for employment to nevertheless be outside  the course of employment.

10. All reasonable steps

Finally, what the claims about there being no defence to direct discrimination miss is that section 109(4) does in fact provide a complete statutory defence to employers. In Canniffe v East Riding of Yorkshire Council [2000] the EAT set out that an employer relying on this defence must show that they took all steps to prevent their employees engaging in the conduct complained of (for example, publicising equality policies, investigating concerns, and disciplining prior acts of discrimination) and that there were no other reasonable actions the employer could have taken. For the employee facing such a defence it is important to identify where the employer’s conduct feel short of expectations to resist the argument that they did everything reasonable to stop the conduct and, by doing so, ensure the employer will remain liable (important as the employer is more likely to pay any financial remedy than a private individual).

Any more defences, then please let me know.