Enforcing the law
The Equality Act sets out how the employment or special needs tribunals and courts operate in this area and the rules for out-of-court settlements. The Government is looking at the case for reforming compensation for discrimination awarded by employment tribunals as part of its ongoing review of employment law. Click here to view details of the Government’s recent consultation on resolving workplace disputes (opens in a new window)
The Act mainly brings together what was in previous law, but also widens the power of employment tribunals to make recommendations when an employer has been found guilty of discrimination. This means a tribunal can now recommend that such an employer takes action which would benefit employees other than the person discriminated against, who may no longer work there. Such recommendations are not enforceable.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission is the institution charged with encouraging good practice on equality and diversity and enforcing equality law in Great Britain. It can issue Codes of Practice and guidance to help businesses and others comply with the law and improve their equality practice. It also has enforcement powers. The Government recently published a consultation paper setting out proposals for refocusing the work of the Commission on its core role as a strong, modern equality regulator. Click here to view Government’s proposals for refocusing the work of the EHRC (opens in a new window)
Tell us what you think should happen to these measures and why, being specific where possible
- Should we scrap them altogether?
- Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
- Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
- Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
- Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
- Should they be left as they are?
George Morley said on April 4, 2012 at 12:13 am
In the screed aqbove it says :
The Equality nd Human Rights Commission is the institution charged with encouraging good practice on equality and diversity and enforcing equality law in Great Britain. It can issue Codes of Practice and guidance to help businesses and others comply with the law and improve their equality practice.
You mean that they cannot rob pensioners like you do ? And not discriminate against just 4% of their workforce like you do against the pensioners who are frozen ? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. If you were a n outsde organisation you would be in court and your feet would not touch the floor. Just another disgusting aspect of the life of a politician.
George Morley said on April 3, 2012 at 5:11 pm
The Equality Act should cover all citizens . Why does it not ?
John Rose said on October 24, 2011 at 2:41 pm
I find it unsatisfactory that an action brought by Unison to the Employment Tribunal on behalf of some members affected by a unilateral change of conditions, resulting in restoration of their status, compensation and a payment to the Union was not ordered to apply also to other workers belonging to a different Union who were affected in exactly the same way by the imposed change of conditions. In other words, they were penalised for belonging to the ‘wrong’ union.
John Sydenham said on October 12, 2011 at 9:35 am
Remove the protection of Religion and Belief and place it in a separate Act that deals with the person committing the alleged harassment and the alleged victim in the Courts not in Tribunals.
Employers should not be concerned with this level of relationship between staff members unless it impacts performance and, whilst the use of Tribunals to deal with passive matters such as race is acceptable, the use of Tribunals to decide matters of active belief is an affront to democracy.
Leave employers and Tribunals out of the Religion and Belief enforcement, employers don’t need this sort of worry and Tribunals are inappropriate. Also society does not need over-zealous corporations and public bodies banning all political comment “just in case”.
John Sydenham said on October 12, 2011 at 9:52 am
To clarify my proposal, it applies specifically to:
26 Harassment
(1) A person (A) harasses another (B) if—
(a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and
(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of—
(i) violating B’s dignity, or
(ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.
and
(4) In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each
of the following must be taken into account—
(a) the perception of B;
(b) the other circumstances of the case;
(c) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.
In respect of the protected characteristic of Belief or Religion
and also:
40 Employees and applicants: harassment
(2) The circumstances in which A is to be treated as harassing B under subsection
(1) include those where—
(a) a third party harasses B in the course of B’s employment, and
(b) A failed to take such steps as would have been reasonably practicable
to prevent the third party from doing so.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply unless A knows that B has been harassed in the
course of B’s employment on at least two other occasions by a third party; and
it does not matter whether the third party is the same or a different person on
each occasion.
(4) A third party is a person other than—
(a) A, or
(b) an employee of A’s.
In respect of the protected characteristic of Belief or Religion