Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

GREAT BRITAIN G.B.1

GREAT BRITAIN G.B.1 Race discrimination ― burden of proof ― drawing inferences of illegal discrimination from primary facts ― role of the industrial tribunal ― evasive or unsatisfactory answers to the statutory questionnaire HEADNOTES Facts The applicant, who was born in China but who had been educated in the U.K., applied for the post of deputy director of the Centre. Although she was well qualified for the job, she was not called for interview. The evidence before the industrial tri- bunal was that no applicant of ethnic Chinese origin was called for interview and that no such person had ever been employed by the Centre. Various statements in the Centre's replies to the questions asked in the statutory questionnaire were mislead- ing. The majority of the industrial tribunal found that there had been unlawful racial discrimination against the applicant in the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the Centre as to its reasons for not short-listing the applicant. Decision Where the applicant showed facts which were consistent with the applicant having been treated less favourably on racial grounds, it was permissible for the tribunal to require the employer to give an explanation for the less favourable treatment and, in the absence http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Labour Law Reports Online Brill

GREAT BRITAIN G.B.1

Download PDF
14 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/great-britain-g-b-1-u0mZI070gm

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
Copyright © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
eISSN
2211-6028
DOI
10.1163/221160292X00087
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Race discrimination ― burden of proof ― drawing inferences of illegal discrimination from primary facts ― role of the industrial tribunal ― evasive or unsatisfactory answers to the statutory questionnaire HEADNOTES Facts The applicant, who was born in China but who had been educated in the U.K., applied for the post of deputy director of the Centre. Although she was well qualified for the job, she was not called for interview. The evidence before the industrial tri- bunal was that no applicant of ethnic Chinese origin was called for interview and that no such person had ever been employed by the Centre. Various statements in the Centre's replies to the questions asked in the statutory questionnaire were mislead- ing. The majority of the industrial tribunal found that there had been unlawful racial discrimination against the applicant in the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the Centre as to its reasons for not short-listing the applicant. Decision Where the applicant showed facts which were consistent with the applicant having been treated less favourably on racial grounds, it was permissible for the tribunal to require the employer to give an explanation for the less favourable treatment and, in the absence

Journal

International Labour Law Reports Online – Brill

Published: Jan 1, 1991

There are no references for this article.