14 Quickly scan the article and decide which is the most appropriate headline.

1. LAWYERS FINED BY TRIBUNAL FOR DISCRIMINATORY BEHAVIOUR

2. HIGH AWARD OF DAMAGES IN DISCRIMINATION CASE

3. TRIBUNAL HEARS CONTROVERSIAL DISMISSAL CASE

 

15 Read through the article more carefully and answer the questions below.

Solicitors are not immune from employment law        

cases being brought against them; in what is being      

 heralded as a landmark case, a tribunal has awarded   

two female former employees of the London firm Sinclair, Roche and Temperley awards totalling £900,000. The employees successfully claimed      

that they were victims of sex discrimination and, in particular, that the discriminatory culture pervading the firm prevented women from becoming senior equity partners.

  An interesting feature of the case is that the tribunal found that the way in which a partner at the firm behaved during the litigation was malicious and designed to discredit one of applicants without having any real foundation. In consequence, the tribunal imposed £3,000 extra   aggravated damages. Such encourage caution in the way in which proceedings are defended. 

 

 

1  Who do you think the text was written for?

2  What was the case about? Who were the claimants, and who were the defendants?

3  What is a 'landmark case'?

4  According to the claimants, what prevented them from becoming senior partners at their firm?

5  Why were extra damages imposed on the defendants?

6  What does the text say about the effect that the award of extra aggravated damages would likely have on future proceedings of this kind?

7  Explain what you think is meant by a discriminatory culture at a law firm.

 

 

Speaking: Agreeing and disagreeing

16 Using the phrases for agreeing and disagreeing presented above, discuss these statements with a partner.

1  Sex discrimination cases will decline as women are now enjoying more equality in the workplace.

2  Drug testing in the workplace is an infringement of an individual's right to privacy, a right which the courts should continue to protect.

3   It is an employer's responsibility to help its employees overcome problems with addiction or substance abuse.

4  Women should be able to resume their careers where they left off after taking time off to bring up a family.

 

Reading : Unfair dismissal

The article below and on page 115 presents an alternative means of dealing with employment rights disputes. It appeared on a website offering news and analysis on European industrial relations.

 

17 The article is divided into three parts. Read the three headings. Which of the three sections do you think primarily contains opinions and attitudes?

 

18 Look at the first section of the text. Underline the explanation of how employment tribunals work, as well as the four adjectives describing the new arbitration scheme.

 

19 Read the whole text. Whose opinions of the arbitration procedure are reported? Why does the writer describe the introduction of the new scheme as ironic?

Determining unfair dismissal cases by arbitration

Since 21 May 2001, a voluntary arbitration procedure in unfair dismissal cases has been available to employers and employees in England and Wales as an alternative to the traditional way of resolving such cases via employment tribunals.

Compared with a public hearing in front of a three-member employment tribunal, with a legally qualified chairperson, involving the cross-examination of witnesses and, in the vast majority of cases, the involvement of legal representatives, the new arbitration scheme, administered by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS), is intended to be 'speedy, informal, confidential [and] non-legalistic'.

Key features of the scheme

There are significant differences between the new arbitration scheme and the conventional employment-tribunal process. The key features of the ACAS arbitration scheme are as follows:

•   The scheme is entirely voluntary and is available only in respect of unfair dismissal claims. It can be used only where both parties agree to it and waive certain rights they would have at an employment tribunal.

•   Hearings will be held in private in such places as an ACAS office or a hotel and will normally be completed within half a day. Written statements of their case may be submitted by the parties in advance.

•   The case will be heard by an experienced arbitrator, chosen by ACAS, not the parties themselves. Legal representatives may be used by the parties.

•   There is no set format for the hearing. Arbitrators have a general duty to act fairly and impartially between the parties, giving each party a reasonable opportunity to plead his or her case and respond to that of the other party. The process is intended to be 'inquisitorial' or 'investigative', rather than adversarial as in tribunal hearings - no cross-examination will take place.

•   Each party covers their own costs in attending the hearing. However, if a dismissal is found to be unfair, the arbitrator can include in die calculation of any compensation a sum to cover the costs incurred by the employee in attending the hearing.

•   Arbitrators are required to apply EC law and the Human Rights Acts 1998 (on which a legal adviser may be appointed to provide guidance), but otherwise, instead of applying strict legal tests and case law, the arbitrator's decision will have regard to 'general principles of fairness and good conduct in employment relations'.

•   As with unfair dismissal cases determined by an employment tribunal, reinstatement, re-engagement and compensation are the available remedies if the dismissal is not upheld. Unlike tribunal cases, however, the award is confidential to ACAS and the parties, and the arbitrator's decision will be final and binding.

•   There is only very limited scope for appealing or challenging the arbitrator's award.

 

Commentary

It remains to be seen what impact the new arrangements will have. Lawyers and other commentators are uncertain about the merits and likely attractiveness of the new scheme. Some have expressed concern that, because the criteria for arbitrators' decisions ('general principles of fairness and good conduct in employment relations') differ from the statutory tests applied by the tribunals, a 'two-tier' system of justice may develop. It has also been suggested that the arbitration scheme offers employers and employees less certainty of outcome, and that the confidentiality of awards may mask variable standards within the arbitration scheme.

Some lawyers think that the confidentiality of proceedings under the arbitration scheme may be a significant attraction to employers who want to avoid the damaging publicity sometimes associated with tribunal cases. Conversely, however, some lawyers predict that the fact that the process is private may make arbitration less attractive to dismissed employees. According to this view, arbitration lacks the 'embarrassment value' of public tribunal hearings which may lead to favourable out-of-court settlements for dismissed employees. The limited grounds for appealing against an arbitrator's decision are considered a disadvantage for employers. Van. irony of the new arbitration scheme is that employment tribunals were themselves intended as an 'easily accessible, informal, speedy and inexpensive' alternative to the ordinary courts for dealing with individual employment disputes when the UK's unfair dismissals legislation was first introduced 30 years ago.