Post by northwestman on Apr 4, 2023 18:09:14 GMT 1
www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11935021/MICK-HUME-Sinister-Bill-turn-workplace-surveillance-state.html
The Bill will let staff sue their bosses if they feel offended or insulted by something said by 'third parties'. That could mean bar staff suing because of a remark made to them by a customer, or hospital staff suing the NHS over offensive comments from a patient.
The remarks don't even need to be directed at the employee; merely overhearing a crude joke could be enough to lead to a tribunal or court case.
In technical terms, the Bill would impose an obligation on employers to prevent harassment by third parties that relates to any 'protected characteristic'. As defined in the Equality Act, these are: age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation.
The Government claims to have introduced amendments to the Bill to ensure that people can still express 'legitimately-held opinions'. But these amendments provide little protection, since employees would be prevented from making a claim only if four conditions were all met.
First, employers would have to prove that the offending comment was overheard by the employee but not directed at them; then that the offence was unintentional; that the offender had expressed an 'opinion on politics, religion or social matters'; and that the remarks were not 'grossly' offensive or indecent.
This sets an impossibly high bar for employers in order to avoid a claim. How could a pub landlord, for example, hope to prove that a drunk customer did not 'intentionally' offend his barman, and that his remarks were political but not gross?
The Bill will let staff sue their bosses if they feel offended or insulted by something said by 'third parties'. That could mean bar staff suing because of a remark made to them by a customer, or hospital staff suing the NHS over offensive comments from a patient.
The remarks don't even need to be directed at the employee; merely overhearing a crude joke could be enough to lead to a tribunal or court case.
In technical terms, the Bill would impose an obligation on employers to prevent harassment by third parties that relates to any 'protected characteristic'. As defined in the Equality Act, these are: age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation.
The Government claims to have introduced amendments to the Bill to ensure that people can still express 'legitimately-held opinions'. But these amendments provide little protection, since employees would be prevented from making a claim only if four conditions were all met.
First, employers would have to prove that the offending comment was overheard by the employee but not directed at them; then that the offence was unintentional; that the offender had expressed an 'opinion on politics, religion or social matters'; and that the remarks were not 'grossly' offensive or indecent.
This sets an impossibly high bar for employers in order to avoid a claim. How could a pub landlord, for example, hope to prove that a drunk customer did not 'intentionally' offend his barman, and that his remarks were political but not gross?
