header-logo header-logo

08 October 2021 / Alec Samuels
Issue: 7951 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Employment
printer mail-detail

Inquisitors, adversaries & workplace disputes

60018
Alec Samuels asks whether an inquisitorial employment disputes system might be more fair
  • Suggests moving to an inquisitorial rather than adversarial system for employment disputes, in light of Royal Mail v Efobi, a race discrimination case where a postal worker was turned down for more than 20 IT/management jobs despite having suitable qualifications.

The employee, Mr Efobi, worked for Royal Mail and applied for promotion within the company on several occasions. Usually he was rejected without interview; occasionally he was rejected following interview. So far as could be seen he was at least equal in qualification, experience and performance to the successful candidates.

The employee claimed race discrimination. He was black, whereas the other candidates were white. The application form asked about ethnicity; or anyway the employer very probably would have known of the ethnicity of the candidates. He contended it was more than coincidence, and was obviously race discrimination. He proved the above facts, the bare facts. He invited the tribunal to draw an adverse inference. The tribunal

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll