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

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