Business Law

Race Relations Act

URN: 6071290
Word Count: 1248
Report on the Race Relations Act and it’s
implications on Business Practices
Introduction

The Race Relation Act (R.R.A) was established to prevent the

discrimination against people on the grounds of race. It’s an Act of The
United Kingdom Parliament, which also covers the ground of colour,
nationality, ethnicity and country of origin. It’s “an act to make fresh
provision with respect to discrimination on racial grounds and relations
between people of racial groups.” The act applies in employment,
education, training, and provision of goods, facilities and services. There
are nine parts to this statutory law. This report will address the Race
Relations Act Part I and discuss primarily on Part II, which focuses on the
employment in business practices.

Findings

Establishment of the Race Relations Act

The Race Relations Act was first established in 1965 (R.R.A 1965 c .73), a
legislation to address racial discrimination in public places. The Race
Relation Board (R.R.B) was established for this legislation to handle and
investigate into racial discrimination complains. In 1968 a new act, The
Race Relations Act 1968 (R.R.A 1968 c.71) was introduced which also saw
the Community Relations Commission (C.R.C) set up to enforce new laws
and combat discrimination in education. The Race Relations Act 1968
extends to covering racial discrimination in housing and employment as
the initial act was described as a weak legislation only covering
“discrimination in specified ‘places of public resort.’ Race Relations Act
1975 (R.R.A 1975 c.74) superseded the previous two acts and
incorporates them together in the new act. It made discrimination
unlawful in employment, education, training, and provision in goods,
facilities and services. It saw the creation of the Commission for Racial
Equality that is a “stronger body with more powers to prosecute.” In 2000
it was extended to the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 (R.R.A 2000
c.34) to the police and other public authorities. They are allowed “To
amend the exemption under the Act for acts done for the purpose of
safeguarding national security: and connected purposes.”

Part I- Discrimination

Part I S.1 (1), the Act defines discrimination in four parts, direct, indirect
discrimination, victimization and harassment where everyone is to be
treated equally. Direct race discrimination is “when a person treats
another person less favourably on the ground of colour, race, nationality,
ethnic or national origin.” Indirect discrimination is when an individual
applies a condition or requirement to all individuals irrespective of racial
group but to an extent that a smaller proportion of a victims racial group
will be able to comply with compared to different racial groups. It cannot
be “shown to be justifiable ‘irrespective of colour, race, nationality or
ethnic or national origins of a person. S.2 (1) states victimization as “the
discriminator” discriminates against another person, the victimized, in any
purposes and treats the person less favourably as how he would treat
others. Harassment defined in S.3 (1) where on grounds of race or ethnic
or national origins he engages in unwanted conduct or effects of violating
the person dignity, creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading,
humiliating or offensive environment for him. In any way or form that
businesses discriminate would lead to fines, compensation or punishment.

Part II- Discrimination in the Employment Field

Section 4 - Subsection 1

Part II S.4 of the R.R.A focus on discrimination in employment field. S.4 (1)
states that “it is unlawful for a person, in relation to employment by him at
an establishment in Great Britain, to discriminate against another in
arrangements for the purpose of determining who should be offered that
employment, or in terms in which he offers him that employment or by
refusing or deliberately omitting to offer him that employment.”
Businesses that are looking to recruit must comply with the act and
consider all applicants fairly. A case that shows where the employer was
not complying with the act is the Johnson v Timber Tailors (Midlands)
(1978) case (see appendix). The employment tribunal decided that the Mr.
Johnson was discriminated on the grounds of race.

Section 4 – Subsection 2

Businesses are to follow strict regulations that prevent businesses to

dismiss an employee unfairly or prevent employees’ access to some form
of promotions or benefits. Under S.4 (2) “it is unlawful for the person
employed by an establishment in Great Britain to discriminate against the
employee in terms of employment which he affords him or afford him
access to promotions, transfer or training, or to any other benefits,
facilities or services, or refusing or deliberately omitting to afford him
access to them, or by dismissing him or subjecting him to any other
detriment.” The case with Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Griffiths Henry
demonstrates that a worker was discriminated and dismissed unfairly. The
tribunal decided that there was a difference of race and sex and a
difference in treatment.

Exclusion to this is, if the person’s employment is terminated by the

expiration or giving notice or in circumstances that he is entitled to
terminate without notice reason of the conduct of the employer. However
S.4 (1) and (2) does not apply in employment in private household.

Section 5 - Subsection 2

However, there are exceptions where businesses can discriminate lawfully

by genuine occupational qualification or requirement. Part II S.5 (2) of the
R.R.A states that “being of a particular racial group is a genuine
occupational qualification for a job only where the job involves
participation in a dramatic performance or other entertainment in a
capacity; or the job involves participation as an artist’s or photographic
model: or working in a place where food and drink is provided to and
consumed by members of the public all for which a person of that racial
group is required for reason of authenticity. Certain businesses for
example are only able to employ a specific gender only for valid reasons.
The case Sisley v Britannia Security System demonstrates a valid reason
to discriminate lawfully (See Appendix). The tribunal accepted the
defendant’s case of genuine occupational requirement where women were
required because of the removal of the uniform. This is acceptable
because the business is protecting its current employees.

However, this does not apply if the employer has employees that are
capable of carrying out the duties, whose numbers are sufficient to meet
the employer’s likely requirements without undue inconvenience. Wylie v
Dee & Co (Menswear) case of a women declined a job because of her sex
due to the fact that measurements were taken for men’s tailoring and it
was inappropriate for her to measure the inside of men’s legs. The tribunal
decided that she was discriminated as another employee could do those
measurements. In this case the business had other employees that could
take the measurements thus specific gender was not important.

Conclusion

The Race Relations Act consists of nine parts that businesses must oblige.
Failing to comply with any parts of the act can lead to compensation, fines
and a negative reputation to the business as unlawful discrimination is
unacceptable in any situation. It applies to all operations in businesses
from the initial stage of recruitment to the protection of current and future
employees up until the dismissal of employees. Businesses are only able
to discriminate lawfully if it is a general occupational qualification or
requirement, therefore they will not be committing an offence. By setting
up code of conduct rules on behaviour businesses can help prevent
problems arising through vicarious liability. It helps give businesses a
better image as it shows that the business is taking steps to prevent
problems.

References

Johnson v Timber Taylors (Midlands) [1978] IRLR 146

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Griffiths-Henry (2006) IRLR 865

Sisley v Britannia Security System (1983) IRLR 404

Wylie v Dee & Co (Menswear) Ltd [1978) IRLR 103

Appendices

Johnson v Timber Taylors (Midlands) [1978]

The claimant, a black Jamaican, applied for a job with the defendants as a
wood machinist the defendants work manager told him that he would be
contacted in a couple of days to let him know whether or not he had been
successful. Mr. Johnson was not contacted and after a number of
unsuccessful attempts to get in touch with the works manager, was told
that the vacancy has been filled. Another advertisement for wood
machinists appeared in the paper on the same night as Mr. Johnson was
told that the vacancy had been filled. Nevertheless, Mr. Johnson applied
again for the job and was told that the vacancy has been filled. About a
week later he applied again and was again rejected told that the job had
been filled although a further advertisement had appeared for the same
job on that day. An employment tribunal decided that the evidence
established that Mr. Johnson had been discriminated against his grounds
of race.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd -v- Griffiths-Henry (2006)

Ms Griffiths-Henry (who is black) started work for Network Rail as an area

finance manager in September 2000. Between June 2003 and July 2004,
the company underwent a major reorganisation that resulted in a TUPE
transfer of 15,000 staff.

Following the transfer, Ms Griffiths-Henry was told that she was one of
nine finance controllers competing for five jobs. The company started a
redundancy process in which all the candidates were assessed according
to a set of skills-based criteria.

Ms Griffiths-Henry was given the second lowest score out of the nine and
was told that she would be made redundant. All the other candidates were
white men. She claimed unfair dismissal, race and sex discrimination.

The tribunal agreed that Ms Griffiths-Henry had been less favourably

assessed in the procedure carried out by the company, which made the
dismissal unfair.

It also said that she had established enough facts from which it could infer
both sex and race discrimination, because “she is the only black person
and the only female in the group. The failure to select her was clearly to
her detriment. We conclude that there was a difference of race and sex
and a difference of treatment.”

Wylie v Dee & Co (Menswear) 1978

A woman was refused employment in a men’s tailoring establishment in

which the rest of the staff were men because it was considered
inappropriate for her to measure the inside of male customers. An
employment tribunal decided that she had been discriminated against
because other male employees could have carried out those
measurements.

Sisley v Britannia Security System, 1983

The defendants’ only employ women are to work in a security control. The
claimant, a male applied but was refused employment. It appeared that
women work 12-hour shifts with rest periods and that beds were provided
for their use during such breaks. The women undress to their underwear
during these rest breaks. The claimant complained that by advertising for
omen the defendants were contravening the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
The defendants pleaded genuine occupational qualification i.e. women
were required because of the removal of the uniforms during rest period.
The employment appeal tribunal accepted the defense, as it was the
defense of preservation of decency was a good one.