BPIF Highlights Issue With Race Laws

Employment Appeal Tribunal decision 'makes a nonsense of Race laws', according to the BPIF.

A decision in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in July 2005 has highlighted a difficulty facing all employers when trying to deal with discrimination issues in their workplace.

Mr Redfearn was employed as a driver and escort of mentally impaired patients, 75 per cent of whom were of Asian origin.

He worked in the Bradford area, and 35 per cent of his co-workers were also of Asian origin.

None of this was relevant at all until the day the local paper announced Mr Redfearn's candidacy in the local elections.

He was standing for the BNP.

His employer was contacted by the Union, referring to the BNP's 'overt racist agenda' and asking that they take steps.

As a result Mr Redfearn was dismissed on health and safety grounds.

He claimed race discrimination.

On 27 July the EAT concluded that 'racial grounds had a significant influence' on his dismissal.

Caselaw dictates that is all an employee needs to show in order to succeed in a claim for racial discrimination.

"In the past, the relevant cases related to employees who have been sacked for refusing to carry out racist instructions," said Anne Copley, BPIF Head of Legal, "which at least has some logic".

"But this result, though correctly decided in line with the caselaw, turns the spirit of the legislation on its head".

"It was never the intention of Parliament that organisations that promote racial disharmony can rely on the Race Relations Act to protect them".

"However, unless Parliament moves to change the law, businesses will have to take great care over these issues".

"Printing companies, being predominantly SMEs, will find it especially difficult to deal with what are very complex legal arguments".

"Our members should not have to be worrying about this whilst trying to run a business in the competitive printing world".

Contact the BPIF to talk to someone from the legal department.

Back to top