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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll