Blog Site

Friday, March 16, 2007

Age Discrimination - Top 5 questions from employers

1.Do Employees now have an automatic right to work beyond the age of 65?

This was the biggest misconception of the Age Regulations. In fact the right is to request that their employer consider their request to work beyond 65. If an employee makes that request then an employer is obliged to follow a process and consider it, but ultimately the decision is with the employer whether the employee does work beyond 65 or not. Employers have a wide discretion as to whether they grant that request.

2.Can Businesses ask for a candidate's age or date of birth on application forms?

The Regs don't expressly say anything specifically about application forms, but it is going to be good practice to take questions about age and date of birth out of the main application form, and instead collect it in a separate diversity monitoring form. You are never going to devise an entirely age-neutral application form. Employers can still ask questions about the candidate's employment history and qualifications for example, from which inferences can be drawn about their age profile. Employers would do just as well to focus on diversity training for those involved in recruitment exercises.

3.Can Employers ask for a specified number of years' experience in job advertisements?

Asking for a certain level of experience does indirectly discriminate against younger candidates. You may be able to justify that, but it will probably be difficult. Some jobs do need to be filled by employees with a certain level of experience. Most employers would be better off however spelling out the competencies needed.

4. CAn Employers reward loyalty because service-related pay or benefits are now banned?

The Regulations actually provide an automatic exemption for pay and benefits which are based on service up to five years. For pay and benefit based on more than five years' service, as an employer you will need to show you had a good business reason for having a service qualification, such as the desire to reward loyalty. In relation to service-related pay, that has been helped by a recent decision in the European Court that decided that employers can often reward length of service with higher pay, as experience often does go hand-in-hand with longer service.

5.Am I  responsible for what an employment agency does on my behalf, or for what my clients or customers do?

The Age Regulations can make you responsible for what, for example, a recruitment agency does acting on your behalf. You can also be responsible for the actions of customers and clients. You do need to ensure that they act appropriately and in accordance with company equality and diversity policies.

Friday, March 16, 2007

Businesses still confused over age discrimination

The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 finally came into force in a blaze of publicity on October 1.

Yet months on, thousands of businesses remain confused as to what the new laws allow - and don't allow - them to do.

Already, that confusion has resulted in some firms banning birthday cards from the workplace in fear that jokey age-based comments may breach the new regulations.

Now, a firm of lawyers which has run a series of special seminars on the new legislation has compiled a list of delegates' most common misconceptions.

The research involving 500 companies, carried out by law firm Brabners Chaffe Street, has revealed widespread confusion about what the legislation means to businesses.

Among them were managers who thought they couldn't reward staff loyalty and that all workers were now automatically entitled to work beyond the age of 65.

Others thought one easy way around the regulations was to outsource their responsibility by hiring an employment agency.

Marcus Difelice, a parter at Brabners Chaffe Street, said that considering the publicity the legislation enjoyed, the results were shocking.

"The business pages have been full of age discrimination for 18 months," said Marcus.

"Yet there are still thousands of businesses who still don't understand what they should be changing to remain within the law.

"On the one hand, some firms are being so cautious, they struggling to run a successful business.

"But far more worrying are the firms who think they can simply hire an outside agency, devolve all their responsibility that way and go behaving as if the law wasn't there."

The five most popular misconceptions were:
1. Employees now have an automatic right to work beyond the age of 65.
2. Businesses can no longer ask for a candidate's age or date of birth on application forms.
3. Firms cannot ask for a specified number of years' experience in job advertisements.
4. I can't reward loyalty because service-related pay or benefits are now banned.
5. As a recruiter, I'm not responsible for what an employment agency does on my behalf, or for what my clients or customers do.

"To a greater or lesser extent, each one of these statements is misconceived," said Mr Difelice. "But each one kept being repeated by business after business that we saw.

"This is after the legislation has come into force.

"Once the issue slips out of the news, there are going to be a lot of people risking their business through ignorance of one of the most important pieces of legislation in a generation."

Friday, March 16, 2007

Claimants may be barred from bringing discrimination claims

In the recent case of City of Bradford Metropolitan City Council v Ms E C Pratt (2007) the Employment Appeal Tribunal barred an employee from bringing a tribunal claim for equal pay on the basis that the employee had not fully set out her grievance in writing prior to bringing the tribunal claim.

The EAT set out that under the statutory modified grievance procedure employees must set out in writing and in reasonable detail the basis for a grievance before issuing discrimination claims in the tribunal. If the employee does not he/she will be barred from bringing the claim.

Such a grievance must be lodged with an employer within three months of the act of discrimination.

The case underlines the importance for employees of taking full legal advice from specialists before issuing legal procedings.

Friday, March 16, 2007

Celebrity Big Brother sparks debate

As employers will no doubt be aware comments by certain celebrity Big Brother housemates have recently made news all around the World. The story raised serious issues as to the nature of racist comments.

An Employer should always remember that it can be held vicariously liable for the discriminatory actions of employees, even where those actions have taken place without their knowledge or approval.

As such, if an employee is being bullied or harassed or being treated less favourably on the grounds of their race it is the employer that often is liable for an award of compensation.

Employers must be aware that remarks of a racist nature are likely to cause offence. Such remarks could also be used in evidence in any subsequent Employment Tribunal claim.

Employers should therefore ensure that they have anti-discrimination and anti-bullying policies in place and that employees are aware that certain race related comments are unacceptable.

The team at discriminationonline.com are able to provide anti-bullying and anti-discrimination policies for employers and also provide training to help avoid discrimination taking place in the workplace. For further details click on "contact us".

Friday, March 16, 2007

British Airways drops ban on wearing crosses

Following recent controversy, BA is chasing its uniform policy to allow all religious symbols, including crosses, to be worn openly.

Last year a row erupted when a BA employee, Nadia Eweida, sought to wear a cross outside of her BA uniform.

BA had reportedly banned any jewellery being worn outside of its uniform, but allowed hijabs and turbans to be worn. The row sparked by the case attracted much media attention, with even Tony Blair being drawn in.

The Company had always argued it never intended to discriminate against Christians on its policy on jewellery but was bound to follow discrimination laws to the letter.

The Transport and General Workers Union, which represented Ms Eweida was happy with BA's statement.

The case highlights the importance of Employers having clear and well thought out policies and procedures.