Employment law aims to eliminate discrimination, but in fact promotes it

In a recent failed employment tribunal case against the Cabinet Office, and Simon Case as its boss, the whistleblower claimed that “the racism within the Cabinet Office appeared to be relentless and systemic”. These words are harsh and, if true, would be a damning indictment of an important government department. But the complaint was withdrawn.

As a former chairman of a public company, I can attest to the corrosive effect of modern labor law on both the employee and the employer. From both perspectives, it encourages deficient behavior in the moral sense. And then?

In the court in which the Cabinet participates, the employee had resigned and the Cabinet said that “no payment was made, even in relation to the legal costs incurred”. But the layoff situation illustrates the broader problem.

The law as it stands is that if an employer fires an employee, the dismissal is legally considered “fair” or “unfair”. Unless an employer follows scrupulous procedures, the dismissal is automatically “unfair”.

The use of the words “fair” and “unfair” is somewhat misleading, because they are legally defined and may or may not represent most people’s judgment of what fair or unfair behavior really is. Hence the “unfair” dismissal. unfair just as Rwanda is now a for sure country

This is important because if an employee can prove that the dismissal is unfair, they can sue their employer for compensation in an employment tribunal.

The law states that such compensation cannot be more than a year’s salary or, from this month, £115,115 (previously £105,707) if less. Therefore, many employers today, especially in relation to senior staff, will offer ‘unfairly’ dismissed employees £115,500 in compensation, knowing that the employee will not sue them because they would not receive any more money even if they won a full payment from a tribunal .

And, in many cases, it’s simply not feasible to put senior employees through the hoops of attempting a “fair” dismissal; you can’t put a CEO or a senior manager through a series of warnings and still expect them to act in the best way for the company. interests at the same time.

But it is at this point that the Equality Act comes into effect. If an employee can successfully argue that a dismissal is the result of discrimination against a “protected characteristic” (gender, sexual orientation, race, age, religion, disability, and more), then the cap on compensation is lifted and compensation can be unlimited. .

Therefore, a middle-aged white male, who has no notable protected characteristics, will find that the compensation offered is unlikely to exceed the maximum limit, and he is (and will be) advised to accept this. . But an employee, an ethnic minority employee or a gay or lesbian employee will be encouraged to think differently. There are armies of employment lawyers who know the law and will also be familiar with the behavior of both employment tribunals and employers, and will encourage a discrimination claim to break the cap.

But employers also know this and will naturally be interested in avoiding the cost, expense and publicity of an employment tribunal, however vexatious the complaint may seem. So in many cases (and I know several), employers calculate the probability of losing such a case (say 50 percent); the likely compensation based on discrimination (say £500,000 for a senior employee), multiply the two (maybe add a bit to get over the line) and offer the new ex-employee say £300,000 as a severance package. even before an unfair dismissal procedure is contemplated.

With such an offer, the employee goes to his lawyer, who, if the above calculations are confirmed, will suggest taking the package. Only if they think they have much better than a 50 percent chance of success, or a possibly much larger pot, will they recommend a court case.

Some biases may apply to these decision-making processes, as employers do not want management distractions (and will pay enough to avoid it) and lawyers want fees and will therefore encourage more litigation than is strictly logical. But the above fundamental principles will apply.

So where does that leave the moral position? Leave us with a law that encourages employees to claim discrimination, whether or not it occurred. And do it solely to exploit your legally privileged position for extra money.

For employers, their behavior can be morally worse. In the event of a high-level redundancy they will typically offer a settlement of £115,500 to white male employees and more, sometimes much more, to all others. In short – they discriminate – but against those who cannot shout “discrimination”.