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

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll