Employment Tribunals
Consultation published on caste discrimination 4 April 2017
This consultation is about how to ensure that there is appropriate and proportionate legal protection against unlawful discrimination because of a person’s origins with due consideration given to how such protection would be implemented in practice.
Geographical extent – this consultation applies to Great Britain only so excludes Northern Ireland.
From the foreword of the consultation: “No one should suffer prejudice or discrimination on any grounds. Behaviour based on prejudice and discrimination is wrong and should not be condoned, whether or not it is prohibited by legislation. Any prejudice and discrimination based on a person’s origins is unfair and unacceptable in a modern society. There is no place for it. We want to eliminate any unlawful discrimination and create a genuinely meritocratic society that works for everyone. “ The Government Equalities Office (GEO) has published a consultation which provides an opportunity for a public debate on whether caste is required to be an aspect of race in the Equality Act. And to analyse the implications of the amendment in section 9 (5) (a) of the Equality Act, involving all those who may be affected by it in relation to work, the provision of goods and services and the carrying out of public functions.
The GEO hope that employers, service providers and public authorities, as well as the wider public, will all contribute to this consultation , hence the 16 weeks given to ensure that everyone will have the opportunity to express their opinions.
The closing date for responses is 17 July 2017.
Back to Contents
Some Other Substantial Reason (SOSR) Dismissal 18 April 2017
Is there a particularly high threshold for an employer dismissing an employee because of a 'substantial reason'?
No, held the EAT in Ssekisonge v Barts Health NHS Trust , rejecting the Claimant's appeal against a finding that her dismissal was fair.
The Claimant was a nurse who, having come to the UK, obtained indefinite leave to remain and then British citizenship, had her citizenship revoked when the Home Office had concerns over her true identity. However, her leave to remain (and work) in the UK was unaffected. The Trust dismissed the Claimant after a disciplinary process relating to concerns over her identity and her conduct. The employment tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was that the Trust could not be certain of the Claimant's identity. It was fair for a 'substantial reason' (SOSR); given the Claimant's role, certainty as to her identity was essential. The EAT rejected an argument that a 'no fault' SOSR dismissal, there was a particularly high threshold for employers to make dismissal reasonable. The EAT noted case law that in such circumstances employers should not be expected to investigate too far beyond what official information they reasonably obtain about an employee from a responsible public authority, but it did note that the position on fairness might differ on different facts, e.g. a case not involving a nurse and an NHS Trust.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin for providing this update.
Back to Contents
£25,000 for early termination of apprenticeship contract 19 April 2017
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Policy News Journal
cipp.org.uk
Page 67 of 516
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker