Draft regulations to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equal Pay Act 1970 are to remain relatively unchanged following submissions from interested parties and the Government’s response to these submissions.

The Women and Equality Unit has published the Government’s response to the consultation on the draft regulations, which will fulfil Government obligations under the Equal Treatment Directive (2002/73). In the response, the Government asserts that it has taken on board the submissions of interested parties, including the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry; however, the majority of the provisions in the draft regulations will remain unchanged.

The response confirms that the following will be retained intact:

• the new formulation of indirect discrimination;
• the new definition of harassment, which covers both harassment on the ground’s of a person’s sex and
• harassment that is sexual in nature;
• the new provisions in the 1975 Act to make it clear that less favourable treatment on the grounds of pregnancy or maternity leave constitutes sex discrimination;
• the extension of protection for people who work for UK companies overseas;
• an eight-week time limit for responding to questionnaires in cases of discrimination and harassment.

One amendment that will be made relates to male comparators. The regulations will more accurately reflect the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Alabaster v Barclays Bank Plc, which made it clear that there is no need for a male comparator in equal-pay cases concerned with pregnancy and maternity leave.

Finalised regulations are expected by September 9.

Copies of the Government response are available from: www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/ publications/etadgovtresponse.doc

Employers are appealing against an employment tribunal ruling that the EU Working Time Directive can be applied offshore.

The offshore gas and oil industry has lodged an appeal against the Aberdeen employment tribunal’s decision that the directive, which governs working hours and holiday entitlement, applies to workers on North Sea platforms located beyond UK territorial waters.

The majority of employees on the platforms work for two weeks followed by a further two weeks compensatory rest, however for many this rest is unpaid.

The latest ruling would allow offshore workers to claim four weeks’ paid leave in addition to the current arrangements.

Employers claim that this would require an additional £200 million as well as an extra 20,000 workers if the employment tribunal were to accept Union claims that all time spent at work, whether on a shift or asleep should be counted as working time.

Leaders of the five unions representing the North Sea workers will meet on September 2 to discuss the dispute.

1. Unlawful sex discrimination can take place before, during or at the end of the employment relationship. For example, unlawful sex discrimination may occur at a job interview, in the form of sexual harassment in the workplace or at a work-related social event outside of the workplace or when terminating the employment relationship. Protection against unlawful sex discrimination after the employment relationship has ended may also exist where an employer victimises an ex-employee who has previously made a claim of sex discrimination, for example, by refusing to provide a reference.
2. The sex discrimination legislation covers not just discrimination on the grounds of sex, but also protects married people against discrimination because of their marital status. It is unlawful in recruitment, employment and dismissal to treat married people less favourably than single people.
3. Employers are acting unlawfully if they issue instructions to an employment agency that they wish to interview, for example, only men and not women.
4. A requirement or condition applied to a job which could have the effect of barring an application from a woman or man will be indirectly discriminatory and unlawful unless the employer can objectively justify the requirement in terms of the needs of the job.
5. Interview assessments should be based on evidence of the person’s job performance, past behaviour and current attitudes. This should be obtained through discussion of the facts, and not assumed as a result of the interviewer’s attitudes, views, prejudices, opinions, likes or dislikes.
6. Care needs to be taken to avoid potentially discriminatory questions at interview. Questions asked should relate only to the requirements of the job, and not to the personal lives or family commitments of the candidates.
7. Psychometric tests, if used in the recruitment process, should be reviewed regularly to ensure that they remain relevant and free from any unjustifiable bias, either in content or in scoring mechanism. The employer should be certain that the test relates clearly and specifically to the requirements of the job, and that it is free from bias in terms of gender.
8. There are a limited number of exceptions to the sex legislation known as ‘genuine occupational qualifications’ (GOQs). The principle behind these is that an employer may in certain circumstances justify employing people of only one sex because of specific needs inherent in the job.
9. A pay policy which treats part-timers differently – for example, by paying less per hour than that paid to full-time employees doing similar work – will be potentially unlawful. The same principle applies to the provision of benefits. Moreover, now the Part-time Worker’s Directive (97/81/EC) has been transposed into UK law under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (from 1 July 2000), such practices are unlawful unless they are objectively justified.
10. The Equal Pay Act 1970, as amended, provides for equal pay between women and men in the same employment where the woman’s work, as compared to the man’s, is like work (i.e. the same or similar job), work rated as equivalent (under a job evaluation scheme), or work of equal value.
11. If benefits are offered on a discretionary basis, the employer should take particular care to ensure that the criteria used to determine who is eligible are free from bias and do not have a disproportionate adverse effect on women.
12. Employers are obliged to offer equal opportunities to men and women as regards the provision of access to promotion, transfer and training.
13. The Pensions Act 1995 made it compulsory for company pension schemes to contain an equal treatment rule which ensures that men and women are given the same rights to join a scheme, and to receive the same benefits from the scheme.
14. Sexual harassment can give rise to claims of unlawful sex discrimination against the employer.
15. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 allows all employees, regardless of age or length of service, to take up a complaint of sex discrimination in an employment tribunal.
16. To claim unfair dismissal on account of pregnancy or maternity leave, an employee does not require any minimum qualifying period of service, and such dismissals are automatically unfair in law.

1. Unlawful sex discrimination can take place before, during or at the end of the employment relationship. For example, unlawful sex discrimination may occur at a job interview, in the form of sexual harassment in the workplace or at a work-related social event outside of the workplace or when terminating the employment relationship. Protection against unlawful sex discrimination after the employment relationship has ended may also exist where an employer victimises an ex-employee who has previously made a claim of sex discrimination, for example, by refusing to provide a reference.
2. The sex discrimination legislation covers not just discrimination on the grounds of sex, but also protects married people against discrimination because of their marital status. It is unlawful in recruitment, employment and dismissal to treat married people less favourably than single people.
3. Employers are acting unlawfully if they issue instructions to an employment agency that they wish to interview, for example, only men and not women.
4. A requirement or condition applied to a job which could have the effect of barring an application from a woman or man will be indirectly discriminatory and unlawful unless the employer can objectively justify the requirement in terms of the needs of the job.
5. Interview assessments should be based on evidence of the person’s job performance, past behaviour and current attitudes. This should be obtained through discussion of the facts, and not assumed as a result of the interviewer’s attitudes, views, prejudices, opinions, likes or dislikes.
6. Care needs to be taken to avoid potentially discriminatory questions at interview. Questions asked should relate only to the requirements of the job, and not to the personal lives or family commitments of the candidates.
7. Psychometric tests, if used in the recruitment process, should be reviewed regularly to ensure that they remain relevant and free from any unjustifiable bias, either in content or in scoring mechanism. The employer should be certain that the test relates clearly and specifically to the requirements of the job, and that it is free from bias in terms of gender.
8. There are a limited number of exceptions to the sex legislation known as ‘genuine occupational qualifications’ (GOQs). The principle behind these is that an employer may in certain circumstances justify employing people of only one sex because of specific needs inherent in the job.
9. A pay policy which treats part-timers differently – for example, by paying less per hour than that paid to full-time employees doing similar work – will be potentially unlawful. The same principle applies to the provision of benefits. Moreover, now the Part-time Worker’s Directive (97/81/EC) has been transposed into UK law under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (from 1 July 2000), such practices are unlawful unless they are objectively justified.
10. The Equal Pay Act 1970, as amended, provides for equal pay between women and men in the same employment where the woman’s work, as compared to the man’s, is like work (i.e. the same or similar job), work rated as equivalent (under a job evaluation scheme), or work of equal value.
11. If benefits are offered on a discretionary basis, the employer should take particular care to ensure that the criteria used to determine who is eligible are free from bias and do not have a disproportionate adverse effect on women.
12. Employers are obliged to offer equal opportunities to men and women as regards the provision of access to promotion, transfer and training.
13. The Pensions Act 1995 made it compulsory for company pension schemes to contain an equal treatment rule which ensures that men and women are given the same rights to join a scheme, and to receive the same benefits from the scheme.
14. Sexual harassment can give rise to claims of unlawful sex discrimination against the employer.
15. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 allows all employees, regardless of age or length of service, to take up a complaint of sex discrimination in an employment tribunal.
16. To claim unfair dismissal on account of pregnancy or maternity leave, an employee does not require any minimum qualifying period of service, and such dismissals are automatically unfair in law.

UK workers are amongst the most ethical in Europe, according to an international study.

The survey of 19,000 workers across the EU carried out by recruitment agency Kelly Services found that UK workersdo not, in general, commit a number of ethical breaches that are common in countries such as France, Spain and Germany.

The survey revealed that fourteen percent of UK workers approved of taking home office stationery compared to 48 per cent in Europe; 21 percent approved of using the Internet for personal use during working hours - the third lowest of all countries surveyed - and just 3 per cent felt that it was ok to use office software at home, the lowest in the study. UK workers also rated their employers highly when it came to ethics, with 53 percent expressing satisfaction with their organisations’ ethical standards and practices – a figure higher than those for most other countries surveyed.

Steve Girdler of Kelly Services commented: “Some organisations have a powerful culture which establishes a strong set of ethical principles, but many companies don’t give the proper emphasis to setting ground rules which will guide the organisation.

“In recent years, we have seen many instances of corporate misconduct at the highest level, which reflects a breakdown in workplace ethics. It is important that employers communicate their values for an organisation which will make it clear at all levels, what is acceptable, and what is not.”

A third of employers deliberately exclude ex-offenders, those with a history of drug abuse, the long-term unemployed and the long-term sick from their recruitment processes, according to research from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD).

In a breakdown of results, employers said that they would exclude:

• ex-offenders (36.6 per cent);
• those with a history of drug use (36.1 per cent);
• those with a history of long-term illness (33.1 per cent);
• homeless people (24.1 per cent);
• those with a history of mental illness (18 per cent);
• those with a history of long-term unemployment (10.4 per cent); and
• New Deal participants (3.3 per cent).

John Philpott, chief economist at the CIPD, said that the slight cooling in the labour market was “bad news for those at the back of the jobs queue and for ministers who may find it harder to meet their welfare reform objectives”. He said that those considered unemployable must be helped by the Government and that employers should be encouraged to recruit the long-term unemployed.

He said: “The extent of exclusion of the core jobless is not in every case justified on the basis of their potential.” Figures from employers with experience of employing ex-offenders show that 87 per cent and 75 per cent consider this group to be as productive and reliable respectively as other workers.

A former City banker has been given permission by the Court of Appeal to challenge the findings of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in a case of sex discrimination.

Andrea Madarassy, the former City banker who brought a claim for sex discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal against Nomura International, has been given permission to launch a second appeal, this time against the findings of an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). Two Court of Appeal judges said there was ‘a real prospect of an appeal succeeding’ on certain issues, including the way in which the burden of proof should be applied in discrimination cases and the extent to which male comparators should be used in pregnancy related cases.

Ms Madarassy claimed discrimination by Nomura after it became known that she was pregnant with her third child. When she returned from maternity leave in July 2001 she alleges that she became the target for dismissal on grounds of sex or pregnancy.

Nomura contended that her position had become redundant and that she was assessed fairly alongside male colleagues. The original hearing largely found in Nomura’s favour, and on appeal the EAT upheld many of the original findings, but referred two issues back for amplification.

The case, which is thought to have implications for the “burden of proof” rules in discrimination cases, is supported by the Equal Opportunities Commission which said it was ‘delighted’ with the decision.

A date for the Court of Appeal hearing has yet to be set.

Britain should end its long-hours culture in favour of ‘working smarter’, according to a report by the Department of Trade and Industry, the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry.

The report highlights examples of new flexible-working practices such as annualised or monthly hours and job-sharing, all of which are said to benefit both staff and employers.

Employment minister Gerry Sutcliffe will speak at the launch of the report, saying: “Changing working patterns can benefit everyone – employers, workers and their families.”

Workers in the UK currently work the longest hours in Europe – an average of 43.6 hours a week compared with 40.3 hours on the continent. The numbers of employees working more than 48 hours a week has increased from 10 per cent in the late 1990s to 26 per cent now.

The report identifies flexible working practices adopted at a number of blue-chip firms, including BT, Accenture, Rolls-Royce and law firm Eversheds. Management consultants Accenture phased out paid overtime and instead introduced a system of time off in lieu. Managers were told to support a healthy work-life balance and flexible working requests.

BT, a pioneer of the home-working trend, now boasts 75 per cent of staff working flexibly, and claims that its ‘anytime, anywhere’ working has saved £5 to £6 million in productive time.

Sick-pay schemes that treat pregnancy-related conditions in the same way as other illnesses do not breach discrimination legislation, EU judges have ruled.

Irish worker Margaret McKenna became pregnant in January 2000 and subsequently suffered a pregnancy-related illness that resulted in her taking extended sick leave as ordered by her doctor.

In line with her employer’s sick-leave scheme, Ms McKenna remained on full pay for 183 days and was then entitled to half pay for the remainder of her time off.

She returned to full pay for the duration of her maternity leave, but when that finished her pay was halved once again as she remained on sick leave for the same condition.

She took her employers to court, arguing that the reduction in pay breached EU discrimination rules as her time off was caused by a condition that could not be suffered by men.

However, the case was thrown out after judges ruled that pregnancy-related illness could be treated as other conditions “provided that the reduction in pay is not so much as to undermine the protection of pregnant workers”.

“The condition of pregnancy is not comparable to a pathological illness and the disorders and complications linked to pregnancy and causing incapacity for work form part of the risks inherent in the condition of pregnancy and are thus a specific feature of that condition,” the judges concluded.

Almost 50 per cent of the workforce would be prepared to work until they reached 70, but just one in five expects to be fit enough to do so, according to a report by the Employers’ Forum on Age (EFA).

The report suggests that the Government would struggle to persuade voters that the retirement age should be increased, with the majority of respondents to an EFA survey claiming that they would be too infirm to keep working into their seventies or resentful of the idea.

More than half of workers questioned said that they were desperate to retire at 65 or earlier. A third, mainly skilled manual workers, said that they loved going to work.

Sam Mercer, the director of the EFA, said: “Over half of all workers want to retire as soon as possible. This should worry the Government, given the need to extend working life to counter our ageing population and the looming pension crisis.”

The report concludes: “Messages on working for longer appear to have little impact on plans for retirement. The EFA hopes that, by understanding better what motivates people at work, we can not only improve people’s working lives but may also be able to influence expectations of retirement.

“The Government’s attempts to address our early-retirement culture by telling people they need to work for longer risk falling on deaf ears.”