header-logo header-logo

A rare sighting

02 December 2011 / Simon Cheetham KC
Issue: 7492 / Categories: Features , Tribunals , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail
82842243_4

Simon Cheetham wonders why tribunal recommendations are such a rare beast

Tribunals have had the power to make recommendations in discrimination cases since the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, now found under the Equality Act 2010, s124. However, it is a remedy rarely requested and a power that is hardly ever used. As a result, employees are overlooking what may be—at the least—a useful bargaining chip and tribunals are missing an opportunity to try and tackle the problems they have identified.

Under s 124, a recommendation by the tribunal requires the respondent employer to take specified steps within a particular time period, “for the purpose of obviating or reducing the adverse effect” on either the claimant or any other person of any matter to which the discrimination proceedings relate.
Under previous legislation, the recommendation could only benefit the individual claimant, but now the tribunal can recommend action that would reduce the impact of the respondent’s discriminatory actions on the wider workforce.   

A trio of remedies

A recent Employment Appeal 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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll