The Race Relations Act applies to anyone discriminated against on the basis of their race, ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality (defined as "racial grounds").

The Act therefore applies equally to white people as well as to ethnic minorities.
In Redfearn v Serco Ltd t/a West Yorkshire Transport Service, the employment appeal tribunal (EAT) has overturned a decision that the claimant's dismissal could be justified on health and safety grounds.

 

What were the facts of the case?

Mr Redfearn had been employed by West Yorkshire Trading Services (WYTS) as a driver and escort for disabled children and adults in the Bradford area. He was summarily dismissed at the end of June 2004, shortly after his election as a BNP councillor.

A number of unions and individual employees expressed concern to the council that a BNP candidate was employed by an organisation that was contracted to carry out services for the council.

His employer also shared those concerns, and on 30 June, WYTS held a meeting with Mr Redfearn at which he was summarily dismissed. It said that his very public membership of the BNP:

  • would present a serious risk to the health and safety of other employees (35 per cent of whom were Asian); and the passengers (70 to 80 per cent of whom were of Asian origin)
  • would cause such anxiety that they would no longer want to travel with WYTS
  • would potentially jeopardize the reputation of WYTS and the group as a whole.

 

What claims did he make?

Mr Redfearn brought two claims - one of direct race discrimination on the basis that he had been treated less favourably on racial grounds than others would be treated; and a second of indirect race discrimination (that a provision, criterion or practice had been applied to him that was to his disadvantage).

The tribunal dismissed the claim of direct discrimination saying that if he had been treated unfavourably, it was on health and safety grounds.

It accepted, however, that the company had applied a provision to Mr Redfearn - that as a member of the BNP he could not be employed on health and safety grounds.

However, it said the employer was justified in this indirect discrimination on the basis "that the application of the provision was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim."

 

What did the EAT decide?

The EAT overturned the tribunal's decision and criticised its reasoning on a number of grounds.

Relying on the case of Showboat Entertainment Centre v Owens (1984, IRLR 7), the EAT said that the phrase "on racial grounds" must be interpreted widely. By ignoring this line of authorities, the tribunal had defined the term far too narrowly.

It had then failed to go on and ask, contrary to the test in Nagarajan v London Regional Transport (1999, IRLR 172) whether racial grounds had "had a significant influence on the outcome" ie dismissal. Instead, it had only considered the reason for his dismissal - health and safety.

The EAT was equally scathing of the tribunal's decision on indirect discrimination, accusing it of a lack of critical evaluation of its reasoning. As a result, it said there was no way of knowing how it came to the conclusion that Mr Redfearn's dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the aim of health and safety.

The decision was therefore remitted to a new tribunal.

 

Comment

This decision is of great concern to those unions and employers who have negotiated policies that membership of the BNP is incompatible with the duties they are employed to do.

If the case is not overturned on appeal, unions will be lobbying the Government to ensure that the BNP cannot use the Race Relations Act (the purpose of which is to prevent discrimination on the ground of race) to be used by the BNP by the back door to protect their political beliefs.