Tag: Mr Chagger

Proving Race Discrimination In Employment

Posted on by admin

Direct race discrimination is when an organisation (or an employee of the organisation) treats a person less favourably than someone else on racial grounds. Proving direct race discrimination is not trivial. The burden of proof is on the employee alleging the discrimination. The UK landmark case of Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins of 2006, where the Employment Tribunal’s finding of race discrimination led (after Abbey National’s refusal to comply with the Tribunal’s order to re-instate Mr Chagger to remedy its wrongdoing) to the record 2.8 million compensation order, serves to illustrate the burden of proof in race discrimination. Abbey National (being re-branded as Santander from 2010 and being part of the Banco Santander Group) employed Balbinder Chagger as one of its two Trading Risk Controllers, both managed by Nigel Hopkins. Mr Chagger was of Indian origin. He earned approximately 100,000 per year. Abbey National dismissed him in 2006, apparently for reasons of redundancy. The redundancy pool of selection was he and the other Trading Risk Controller, a white female.

The employee alleging the race discrimination must prove that his employer, on the balance of probabilities, discriminated against him on racial grounds. On the balance of probabilities means that the alleger needs to prove that it is more likely than not that the employer treated him differently on the grounds of his race; the alleger does not need to prove with absolute certainty that the employer discriminated.

The alleger must prove that he was treated less favourably than someone else (preferably a real comparator, but it could also be a hypothetical comparator) on the grounds of race. This can often be very difficult because the employer will almost always deny that the alleged discrimination had anything to do with race.

Mr Chagger established a case based on facts suggesting there had been race discrimination. The Employment Tribunal found that Mr Chagger had been selected for redundancy and had been dismissed and that a real comparator (the other Trading Risk Controller) had not. The Tribunal noted that there was a difference in race, colour and ethnic origin between Mr Chagger and the comparator. The Tribunal noted the following: Mr Chagger’s selection for redundancy was grossly unfair; Mr Hopkins had predetermined that Mr Chagger would be the employee that would be selected for redundancy; Mr Hopkins had used the redundancy selection process as a means to remove Mr Chagger from his position; Mr Hopkins had reduced Mr Chagger’s redundancy scores on matters which no reasonable employer would have taken into account; Abbey National provided no Equal Opportunity training for any of the managers it assigned to hear and decide on Mr Chagger’s issues and complaints of race discrimination; Abbey National failed to answer Mr Chagger’s Race Relations Act Questionnaire; and Abbey National was in breach of the statutory Code of Practice on Racial Policy in Employment by failing to carry out monitoring, failing to take allegations of race discrimination seriously, and failing to investigate them promptly.

If the alleger can establish a case based on facts suggesting there has been race discrimination, then the burden of proof could shift to the employer to prove otherwise. The employer will then be burdened with the task of having to prove that it would have treated in a similar way someone else who was not of the same racial group as the alleger. If the employer does not have any non-discriminatory explanation, or if the Tribunal finds the explanation inadequate or unsatisfactory, then the Tribunal must infer discrimination on racial grounds.

The Tribunal was satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, Abbey National and Mr Hopkins had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in respect of his dismissal. The Tribunal, therefore, passed the burden of proof to Abbey National and Mr Hopkins to show that there was no discrimination whatsoever in respect of Mr Chagger’s selection for redundancy and dismissal.

The employer will almost always deny that the alleged discrimination had anything to do with race. The explanation that Abbey National and Mr Hopkins put forward was that the selection for redundancy and dismissal was carried out fairly. The Tribunal rejected this explanation for the factors listed above. Abbey National then put forward an alternative explanation, that Mr Hopkins and Mr Chagger could not have had any reasonable working relationship (that is, the difference in treatment suffered by Mr Chagger was for a reason other than racial grounds). The Tribunal could not rely on this explanation; it was an explanation that Mr Hopkins himself did not accept.

Employment Grievance Procedure Illustrated With Chagger V Emilio Botin Abbey Banco Santander Group

Posted on by admin

An employment grievance is an issue, complaint or concern over employment rights that the employee brings to the attention of his employer. The grievance may be about such things as employment terms and conditions, health and safety, equal opportunities, organisational change, work relations, working environment, bullying and harassment, and new working practices.

The UK employment grievance procedure is illustrated here with the high-profile Court of Appeal employment race discrimination case Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2009), in which an Employment Tribunal made findings of breach of contract, unfair dismissal and race discrimination, and ordered Emilio Botin Abbey Grupo Santander share price to pay Mr Chagger the record-breaking financial compensation of 2.8 million to cover his loss (Emilio Botin Abbey Santander banking group had refused to reinstate Mr Chagger as ordered by the Employment Tribunal).

Abbey Banco Santander share (the UK high-street bank being re-branded as Santander shares price, and being part of the international Banco Santander Central Hispano Group) dismissed Balbinder Chagger from his Trading Risk Controller position in 2006. Abbey Santander banking claimed the dismissal was the result of a fairly conducted redundancy exercise. Mr Chagger, on the other hand, alleged that his removal was motivated by unfairness and race discrimination. He was of Indian origin, earned about 100,000 per annum and reported into Nigel Hopkins.

There are many benefits in resolving a grievance through informal channels and, wherever possible, the employee should try to achieve this first. Failing that, a formal grievance procedure may be pursued. The procedure is meant to process the grievance with fairness, consistency and speed.

The employee initiates the formal grievance procedure by informing the employer in writing of the grounds of his grievance. The procedure then requires the employer to invite the aggrieved employee to a grievance-hearing meeting to hear the grievance. The grievance hearing must be held within a reasonable time from the date the grievance was raised, usually within 2 weeks. The employee usually has the right to be accompanied to the hearing. At the grievance hearing, the employee explains his grievance and how he would like to see it resolved. The employer is ultimately responsible for deciding how to resolve the grievance. The grievance procedure gives the employer an opportunity to handle the grievance and to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. Once the employer has decided how to resolve the grievance, the employer must notify the employee of the decision in writing, explaining that the decision may be appealed.

If the employee is dissatisfied with the employer’s handling of the grievance and wishes to pursue the grievance further formally, then he may appeal against the employer’s decision. The employee appeals by informing the employer in writing of the grounds of his appeal. The employee normally needs to raise his appeal within 5 days from the grievance outcome. The employer must then invite the employee to an appeal-hearing meeting to hear the appeal. The appeal hearing must be held with a reasonable time from the date the appeal was raised, usually within 2 weeks. The employee usually has the right to be accompanied to the hearing. At the appeal hearing, the employee explains his appeal and how he would like to see it resolved. The employer is ultimately responsible for deciding how to resolve the appeal. The grievance procedure gives the employer another opportunity to handle the grievance and to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. Once the employer has decided how to resolve the appeal, the employer must notify the employee of the decision in writing, explaining that the decision is final and may not be appealed, and that the grievance procedure has been completed and ended.

If at the end of the employer’s handling of the grievance the employee remains dissatisfied with the outcome, then the employee may escalate the his issues to an Employment Tribunal for an independent adjudication. The system of Employment Tribunal is the final channel available to an employee to determine whether or not the employer has acted appropriately. Employment Tribunals will hear disputes regarding unfair dismissal, equal opportunities, discrimination and redundancy payments.

In 2006, Mr Chagger escalated his issues to the Employment Tribunal, alleging unfair dismissal, race discrimination and breach of contract. The Employment Tribunal ruled that Mr Chagger had in fact suffered unfairness and race discrimination from Santander Abbey and from Mr Hopkins, as well as suffering breach of contract from Abbey Santander share.

The Employment Tribunal noted that Mr Chagger had tried to resolve the issues surrounding his dismissal through Abbey Santander’s grievance and appeals procedures. However, the Tribunal found that there was a culture at Santander Abbey of tending to deny and refuse Mr Chagger’s issues, and the issues were simply thrown out of hand by every Abbey Santander officer who had been assigned to decide on them. The Tribunal concluded that Emilio Botin Abbey Santander price had failed to give serious consideration to allegations of racial discrimination and to investigate them promptly.

In 2008, both Abbey Santander banking and Nigel Hopkins appealed against the Employment Tribunal’s ruling of racial discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) rejected their appeal. Thus, the original Employment Tribunal’s ruling that Abbey Grupo Santander share and Nigel Hopkins had discriminated against Mr Chagger had been upheld by the EAT. At the same time, Abbey Banco Santander and Mr Hopkins had also appealed against the record 2.8 million compensation awarded. The EAT accepted this appeal and ordered the financial compensation to be sent back to the original Employment Tribunal for reconsideration on the basis, amongst others, that the Employment Tribunal should have considered whether to reduce the compensation to take account of the chance that Mr Chagger could have been dismissed in any event.

In 2009, Mr Chagger appealed to the UK Court of Appeal against the EAT’s rulings regarding the compensation. The Court of Appeal partly upheld Mr Chagger’s appeal, but upheld the EAT’s ruling that the compensation be sent back to the original Employment Tribunal for reconsideration on the basis that the Employment Tribunal should have considered whether to reduce the compensation to take account of the chance that Mr Chagger could have been dismissed in any event.

Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Nigel Hopkins did not appeal against the EAT’s ruling on race discrimination; they appear to have conceded they racially discriminated against Mr Chagger.

Copyright © 2023 L2 Native Business . All rights reserved.