header-logo header-logo

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

A rare sighting

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

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll