
Sarah Ide and Alexandra Addington discuss the importance of taking a zero-tolerance stance on racism in the workplace.
It’s important for employers to assess their position on racial equality in their workplace. Any actions should not be a token nod towards the concept; employers should have a continual eye on anti-discrimination measures to ensure they are embedded in the workplace.
When employers make decisions, they have a duty under the Equality Act 2010 to have due regard to the need to:
- Eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation
- Promote equality of opportunity
- Foster good relations between people from different groups.
Many employers will acknowledge that it’s the workforce that can make or break a business. The right team can elevate a business to its peak potential. A study by Businessolver found that 96% of employees believe showing empathy is an important way to advance employee retention. If you want to elevate your practice, build a genuinely inclusive environment.
Build a framework
There are some specific policies that can support your practice and help you build a framework of inclusivity.
An equality and diversity policy will set out your commitments for a happy and diverse workforce where individuality is celebrated and protected. It should include a commitment to equal opportunities for all members of staff, as well as outlining the steps that you will take to tackle any form of discrimination that may arise.
Reporting procedures and telling staff where they should direct complaints to is an essential starting point.
A bullying and harassment policy should set your expectations for employee behaviours and outline the responsibility of all workers to take an active part in identifying and raising issues as they arise, and the consequences if allegations of bullying and harassment are well founded.
A recruitment and selection policy can demonstrate that you are committed to eradicating unconscious bias and outline a framework for a more inclusive process.
Policies must be brought to life. Practices should be able to show that employees are aware of the policies and have received training on the practice’s zero-tolerance stance.
Employer liability
Employers are liable in law for an act of discrimination carried out by any of their employees in the course of their employment. Employers can only defend themselves against liability for that discrimination if they can show they took all reasonable steps to prevent their staff from behaving in a discriminatory way.
If a complaint of unlawful discrimination is upheld, the tribunal will usually order the employer to pay compensation. A compensation award will in most cases include damages for any loss of earnings (past and, where appropriate, future losses); there is no maximum limit on this element.
A tribunal will also award an amount for injury to the employee’s feelings. The level will depend on the circumstances, ranging from £1,200 for a less serious one off act up to almost £60,000 for more serious cases which may have involved a series of acts. In the most serious cases, the injury to feelings award can exceed that maximum.
In Mr Famojuro v Boots, the claimant (Mr Famojuro), who is Nigerian, worked as the ‘responsible pharmacist’, which meant that he could delegate duties as appropriate. When he asked a colleague to carry out a work-related task, the colleague snapped at him. The claimant later had a ‘private word’ with the colleague and asked her to leave the store for the day.
He was accused of having a very loud and aggressive tone in this conversation, as well as ‘towering over’ and shouting at another manager. He was reported to the police for aggression despite any third-party witnesses which the Employment Tribunal (ET), found to be a very serious matter. The way he was treated was unwarranted, distressing and humiliating. The ET found that he was constructively dismissed and harassed because of his race.
Zero-tolerance mindset
In Pile-Grey v Ministry of Defence, the claimant (Mr Pile-Grey), said that he was continually called offensive names related to his race throughout his career. He made a claim of race discrimination after an incident when a lance corporal refused to believe he was a soldier. He had left his ID card inside the guardroom when he left to make a phone call. He was wearing civilian clothes, had sunglasses on and had his hair, which was styled into dreadlocks, on show.
When he attempted to get back into the guardroom, the lance corporal was ‘disbelieving that he could be a soldier – he actually stuck his head back into the guard room and said “this gentleman thinks he’s left his ID inside”’. The ET found that the Mr Pile-Grey had been treated less favourably because of his race.
From every angle, it makes sense for a practice to keep its zero-tolerance stance on racism at the forefront of its mind.
Follow Dentistry.co.uk on Instagram to keep up with all the latest dental news and trends.