Weatherfield Limited t/a Van & Truck Rentals v Sargent [1999] IRLR 94 Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal decision in Weathersfield Ltd t/a Van & Truck Rentals v Sargent has given a wide interpretation to the words "on racial grounds" within the meaning of the Race Relations Act. Significantly, the Court of Appeal has upheld a finding of the Employment Tribunal that a white European employee was discriminated against on racial grounds when she resigned in response to being given an instruction to discriminate against prospective customers of black and Asian origin.
Mrs Sargent, of white European ancestry, had obtained a job as a receptionist for the Respondents. She was given an induction course by a senior employee of the Respondent, which included guidelines as to how individuals and classes of people should be assessed for risk. She was told that the company had a special policy regarding ethnic minority customers: "We have got to be careful who we hire the vehicles to. If you get a telephone call from any coloured or Asians you can usually tell them by the sound of their voice. You have to tell them that there are no vehicles available". The following day, Mrs Sargent was interviewed by a director of the Respondent company and asked whether or not "the policy" had been explained to her.
The senior employee agreed that it had and that the applicant had been informed about taking calls from coloureds and Asians.
Mrs Sargent was so upset about this policy that she decided that she could not continue in the job. As a result, the applicant telephoned the director and told him simply that she could not do the job. Mrs Sargent did not at the time give the reason for her resignation, although she subsequently did so by letter to the Respondent. Mrs Sargent then brought a case of race discrimination against the Respondent. The Employment Tribunal upheld the complaint and awarded £5000 compensation.
On appeal the Court of Appeal rejected the more natural meaning of the words of the Race Relations Act that, in order for someone to be treated less favourably "on racial grounds", the treatment must be related to their own race. Lord Justice Pill acknowledges in his judgment that this construction of the statute "does involve giving a broad meaning to the expression racial grounds", but he explains that "it is one which in my view was justified and appropriate".
It should be pointed out that this is in contrast to the wording of the Sex Discrimination Act, which says explicitly that the less favourable treatment must be on grounds of "her sex". The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasoning of the EAT in Showboat Entertainment Centre Limited v. Owens [1988]IRLR 7 that the words "on racial grounds" are capable of covering any reason or action based on race,and that Parliament could not have intended that a person dismissed for refusing to obey an unlawful discriminatory instruction should be without a remedy.
The Court held that the applicant was unfavourably treated by comparison with somebody who was prepared to go along with the employer's unlawful instruction.
The Respondents had argued that Section 30 of the Race Relations Act, which provides that it is unlawful for a person who has authority over another person to instruct him to do any act which is unlawful, was the only section which could apply to the current circumstances. Section 30 does not give an individual a right of complaint to an Employment Tribunal, but rather enables the Commission for Racial Equality to take action against someone in breach of Section 30. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, stating that "there is no reason why the individual's right to complain of the wrong done to him and the Commission's right to stop unlawful acts generally by injunction should not co-exist".
The decision is also of significance to the law of constructive dismissal. The Court of Appeal held that, in order to establish a claim of constructive dismissal, there is no requirement as a matter of law that an employee must tell the employer the true reason why they are leaving.
In the present case, the Court of Appeal found that the Tribunal were amply justified in holding that there was a constructive dismissal. The employee had been put in an outrageous and embarrassing position and it was understandable that she did not want immediately to confront the employer with her reason for leaving.
The Court held that the unlawful instruction to discriminate was such that the employee was entitled to treat it as grounds for resigning and claiming constructive dismissal. This overturned the holding of the EAT in Holland v. Glendale Industries Limited [1998] ICR 493 that constructive dismissal cannot be established unless it is made clear to the employer that the employee is leaving because of the employer's repudiatory conduct.
The Court of Appeal have applied a broad and literal interpretation of the meaning of the words "on racial grounds" in the Race Relations Act, confirming that the phrase could be related to the race of a third party, and not merely to the race of the applicant.
This decision has a significant practical impact on employers who operate racist policies, leaving them open to claims brought by any employee, regardless of their race, who are able to show the Tribunal that they have been offended by the racism, and thereby suffered a detriment.