Article Directory :: Legal Articles

Equal Opportunity and Diversity Failures

By Simon King

Republish: EasyPublish™ Published: 28Apr2009 Word count: 759 Viewed: 351 time(s) Get Free Content For Your Site

There was a time when discriminatory language and behaviour were tolerated and, in some cases, even encouraged in our society. The situation has changed significantly in the last few decades. However, outdated attitudes do still exist, and prejudice and discrimination are still around; subjects like race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, marital status, age and disability still divide opinions.

Workplace incidents arising from either outdated attitudes or a lack of understanding of the issues surrounding discriminations and prejudices can have serious negative consequences for employers, including claims of unfairness or, more seriously, discrimination. Employers who learn about such incidents but do nothing appropriate about them can find their apparent lack of commitment to equality counting against them. Such was the situation that Abbey National (part of the Banco Santander Group) faced in the UK landmark case of Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins of 2006, where Abbey National's apparent lack of commitment to equality contributed to the Employment Tribunal's judgement of race discrimination, which, after Abbey National's refusal to comply with the Tribunal's order to re-instate Mr Chagger to remedy its wrongdoing, led to the record £2.8 million compensation order. The case provides important references regarding an employer's commitment to equality.

Balbinder Chagger, of Indian origin, was employed by Abbey National on a remuneration of around £100,000 per annum and reported into Nigel Hopkins. In 2006, he was dismissed ostensibly for reason of redundancy. The Tribunal found that Mr Hopkins had used the redundancy process as a means to remove Mr Chagger from his position, and that both Mr Hopkins and Abbey National had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in respect of his dismissal.

'Equal Opportunity' aims to prevent discrimination in society through legislation designed to influence behaviours. It is based on the moral and ethical case for treating people fairly and equitably. It focuses on groups (not individuals) and aims to secure fairness for all groups in society.

'Diversity' also aims to prevent discrimination in society. In contrast to Equal Opportunity, Diversity focuses on the differences of individuals (not groups). It is based on the commercial case for recognising and valuing difference, rather than the moral or ethical case.

Equal opportunity and diversity at work mean that all employees are treated with fairness and are not subjected to discrimination or harassment; meaning that all employees have fair access to the opportunities that are available. Fair and equitable treatment of all employees offers many benefits to employers, stemming from employees feeling valued and able to contribute to the best of their abilities. An equal opportunities employer is one who treats all employees with equal dignity and respect, provides fair access to jobs and opportunities based on employees' abilities, selects all employees based on merit, and values diversity in the workplace.

Employers can demonstrate their commitment to equality by providing employees with Equal Opportunity and Diversity training. The training teaches people what are and are not appropriate behaviours in the work environment; it aims to separate people's opinions from their roles and jobs at work. The Tribunal noted that Mr Chagger had tried to address his allegations of race discrimination directly with Abbey National and Mr Hopkins, through the company's own complaints and grievance procedures. However, Abbey National had not provided equal opportunity training to any of the managers it allocated to hearing and deciding on Mr Chagger's issues, there was a culture at Abbey National of tending to deny and refuse Mr Chagger's issues, and Mr Chagger's issues were dismissed out of hand. The Tribunal criticised both Mr Wilson and Mr Brener in particular (two of the senior managers that heard and decided on Mr Chagger's issues) for appearing to believe that if there was no overt 'racial prejudice' then there could be no race discrimination. The Tribunal found that Abbey National was in breach of the Code of Practice on Racial Policy in Employment by not providing the managers with equal opportunity training.

Employers can also demonstrate their commitment to equality in the workplace by implementing procedures that monitor fairness. The Tribunal also found that Abbey National was in breach of the Code of Practice on Racial Policy in Employment with regard to monitoring too. The Tribunal noted a multitude of monitoring failures, including the failures to take allegations of race discrimination seriously and to investigate them promptly.

Thus, Abbey National's apparent lack of commitment to equality contributed (amongst other factors) towards the Employment Tribunal's finding that Abbey National and Mr Hopkins had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in respect of Mr Chagger's dismissal.

EasyPublish™ this article - publishers click here

More articles by Simon King

Free Report!
Ten Essential Secrets Of Article Marketing ... Grab Your Free
Copy Now:

Need Content?
Regular Top Quality Content for your Blog, Ezine or Website ...
Delivered Direct,
For Free!
Click For Details