School culture

Under Regulation 38 of the age discrimination legislation (now the Equality Act 2010), Tribunals can make wide recommendations as to what steps organisations should take to prevent the discrimination occurring again. In Lycee Francais Charles de Gaulle v Delambre, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) said that recommendations made by the Tribunal were appropriate to correct the discriminatory culture at the school.

Basic facts

Ms Delambre, who had been working at the school since 2001 as a part-time dinner lady, applied for a supervisory role in 2008. The school turned down her application on the basis of her age.

When she tried to complain about the decision, the head teacher and other members of the school’s senior management team criticised her conduct and generally victimised her.

Ms Delambre remained at the school but claimed age discrimination and victimisation.

Tribunal decision

The Tribunal found in her favour on both counts, dismissing the school’s argument that being French was a “mitigating factor”. Instead, it made three recommendations, saying that the school needed a complete change of culture. The recommendations were:

• that the Tribunal’s full Judgment be circulated to every member of the school governing board and senior management team
• that the school engage a HR professional to do a complete review of its existing equality, disciplinary, grievance and recruitment policies and procedures, amending or redrafting them where necessary to ensure they complied with UK employment law within six months.
• that the school undertook a programme of formal equality and diversity training, beginning with the board of governors and the senior management team and cascading down through the entire organisation.

The employer appealed, arguing that the recommendations showed the Tribunal misunderstood the structure of the school, as there was no board of governors. It also claimed that the three recommendations were far too broad and did more than just alleviate the discrimination Ms Delambre suffered.

EAT decision

The EAT disagreed, saying that the recommendations were perfectly appropriate. It dismissed the criticism about the “board of governors”, as this was the translation given to the French body known as the Commission Paritaire throughout the hearing.

It also said that, given the Tribunal’s findings that the school had refused to follow UK employment law, had raised issues in respect of Ms Delambre’s conduct at an inappropriate stage and had failed to properly deal with grievances and recruitment, it was acceptable to recommend that the services of an HR professional be engaged.

The EAT went on to say that, as Ms Delambre continued to be employed by the school, she was entitled to know that because of the Tribunal’s recommendations, policies would be put in place which would “enable her to raise without fear an application for promotion and grievances which may occur during the course of her career and to be treated correctly for matters of misconduct put against her”.

In essence, the EAT said Ms Delambre had the right to know that any future complaints she may have, would not be dealt with in a similar way.

It made the point that equality lay at the heart of this case, and confirmed that “….everybody working in a substantial organisation needs to understand the effect of diversity and a broad appreciation of how diversity is protected in this country….”.