Concerning the issue of race discrimination in the UK, employers must follow truthful, objective and rational redundancy procedures lest the capacity to defend against accusations of discrimination is lost. In race discrimination cases the burden of proof is placed on the employee. If an employee will establish a prima facie case primarily based on factual data suggesting there was direct or indirect discrimination, then the burden of proof may shift to the employer. Then, unless the employer will disprove the discrimination accusation, the claimant can surely win the case. This idea is referred to as the "reverse burden of proof" and was introduced in 2003 with the introduction of section 54A as an change to the Race Relations Act 1976 ('RRA').
A landmark case of racial discrimination in the UK was Chagger v Abbey National % & Hopkins of 2006, where the Employment Tribunal applied the reverse burden of proof provisions and also made an unprecedented compensation award of ?2.eight million.
The wording of section 54A moves the burden of proof to the employer solely in cases where there are allegations that the employer has committed an act of discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic or national origins. Discrimination on grounds of colour is not mentioned by the RRA 1976. In 2008, The Employment Charm Tribunal (EAT) thought of if Mr Chagger, the claimant in the Chagger v Abbey National percent & Hopkins case of 2006, was due the profit of the burden of proof being reversed, despite having remarked discrimination on the basis of color in his evidence before the Employment Tribunal.
The EAT's transcript of proceedings shows that Abbey National, part of the Banco Santander Group, utilized Balbinder Chagger, of Indian origin, as a Trading Risk Controller, reporting into Nigel Hopkins.
He earned a considerable quantity, around ?a hundred,000 per year. In 2006, Abbey National swiftly dismissed Mr Chagger ostensibly for reasons of redundancy, in an exceedingly scenario where the pool of choice was he and a white feminine colleague. Abbey National selected Mr Chagger for dismissal primarily based on criteria on which Mr Chagger scored lower as compared along with his white feminine colleague. Before his dismissal, Abbey failed to provide Mr Chagger with a 'step one' letter as needed under the statutory disciplinary and dismissal procedures. Consultations, but, were held with Mr Chagger. Within the run-up to his dismissal Abbey awarded Mr Chagger a performance connected bonus that was significantly lower than the previous year's amount. Mr Chagger tried to resolve the issues surrounding his dismissal and bonus directly with Abbey National and his manager, Mr Hopkins, through the company's internal complaints and grievance procedures. However, his issues were dismissed out of hand. He then began legal action on the idea of race discrimination and unfair dismissal against Abbey National and Mr Hopkins.
The Employment Tribunal found, amongst different things, that Mr Chagger had been unfairly dismissed and that Abbey National and Mr Hopkins had discriminated against him on the grounds of race in respect of his dismissal. The Tribunal asserted that the dismissal was unfair providing Abbey National failed to follow the relevant statutory procedures and as a result of the redundancy exercise had been a pre-determined arrange to remove Mr Chagger from his position; Mr Chagger had been picked on unfairly and the criteria used were too irrational, subjective and not measurable.
The dismissal was stained with race discrimination UK. The Tribunal mentioned a plethora of proof supporting this notion like the unfair redundancy method itself and Mr Chagger's victimisation in it; the shortage of equal opportunities coaching for those utilized in senior and middle management at Abbey; Abbey National's failure to reply to Mr Chagger's race discrimination questionnaire and failure to look at the relevant code of practice. So, the Tribunal applied the reverse burden of proof provisions in section 54A of the Race Relations Act 1976. Abbey National and Mr Hopkins were unable to convince the Tribunal that their reasons for their shoddy treatment of Mr Chagger were not a matter of race discrimination UK.
The Tribunal ordered Abbey to re-instate Mr Chagger so as to remedy its wrongdoing. Abbey, however, refused to suits the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal then ordered Abbey to pay Mr Chagger the unprecedented ?2.eight million in compensation for his loss on the idea that he had not been re-instated. This figure was primarily based on an estimate of loss of earnings for the remainder of his career.
Abbey National and Mr Hopkins appealed to the Employment Charm Tribunal (EAT) against the decision of race discrimination and the number of the compensation award.
Basically, almost about Mr Chagger's plea, the EAT said it had been clear that the discrimination carried out was primarily based on race, color and ethnic or national grounds. Once the relevant case law had been reviewed and therefore the wording of the EU Directive examined, the EAT said it had been inconceivable that the Race Equality Directive wasn't proposed to use to discrimination on grounds of colour. Whereas it had been doable to discriminate on the grounds of race or ethnic origin without discrimination on the ground of color, the reverse was not therefore; discrimination on the ground of color that may not additionally properly be characterised as discrimination on the ground of race and/or ethnic origin was inconceivable. So, the EAT upheld the original Tribunal's findings of race discrimination and Abbey National's appeal on the race discrimination verdict failed.
Abbey National's appeal on the unprecedented size of the compensation award was accepted and the EAT sent back ('remitted') the compensation to the first Employment Tribunal for reconsideration on the idea of the likelihood of Mr Chagger leaving Abbey National's employment in any event.