header-logo header-logo

Dispute procedures victimise employees

13 April 2007
Issue: 7268 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Human rights , Employment
printer mail-detail

Workplace dispute resolution procedures designed to protect sufferers of religious and sexual orientation-related abuse tend to victimise them even further, and usually result in their dismissal or demotion, research shows.

Surveys undertaken by the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) and ACAS, published last week, show that dispute resolution procedures often aggravate the experience of discrimination rather than resolve it.

The IES research found that a major complaint among claimants was the tendency of employers to respond to their complaint by seeing them as the problem, rather than the victim of unfair treatment.

The research tracked the progress of the employment equality regulations on sexual orientation and religion or belief, which became law in 2003.

Participants in the ACAS study, which covered 470 sexual orientation and 461 religion or belief cases, said employment tribunals were a valuable way for their claims of ill treatment to receive an objective hearing. This was felt to be more important than obtaining compensation.

The research also found that different groups faced different kinds of discrimination, with sexual orientation

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll