Tag: Nigel Hopkins

Importance Of Race Relation Act Questionnaire Rr65 Demonstrated By Banco Santander Group

blogger /

The importance of the Race Relations Act Questionnaire RR65 is highlighted by the high-profile Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006) UK legal case, where the Employment Tribunal made a finding of race discrimination, which subsequently led to the record-breaking compensation award of 2.8 million. In 2006, Abbey National Santander Group (the Spanish-owned UK high street bank which will soon be re-branded as Santander, and is part of the Banco Santander Group) terminated Balbinder Chagger’s employment, giving redundancy as the reason. Mr Chagger believed, however, that the real reason behind his dismissal was race discrimination. Santander Abbey National Group employed Mr Chagger (who was of Indian origin) as a Trading Risk Controller and paid him about 100,000 per annum. He reported into Nigel Hopkins.

Employees who believe they have suffered race discrimination at work and are considering pursuing legal action may serve a Race Relations Act Questionnaire RR65 upon the employer. The Race Relations Act Questionnaire RR65 procedure is set out in the Race Relations Act (Questions and Replies) Order 1977.

The employee serves his questionnaire upon the employer via form RR65. It contains some standard questions, such as to what extend does the employer concur with the employee’s version of events, what is the employer’s version of events, and does the employer accept that the employee has suffered discrimination (and if not, then why not). The employee may attach his own specific questions to the end of the standard questions.

The serving of a Race Relations Act Questionnaire RR65 is not a necessary step in dealing with the discrimination via formal legal proceedings; it is optional. But, it is a step that gives the employee a unique chance to collect evidence in support of his case (because it permits the inclusion of questions of an exploratory nature), as well as, to obtain further information useful in deciding whether to proceed with legal action or not. Therefore, the employee should seriously consider serving a questionnaire, and design the questions to uncover evidence that proves race discrimination which is known only to the employer, uncover fully the employer’s case, and ascertain which facts are accepted by the employer and which are in dispute.

The employer must respond to the questionnaire in writing within a reasonable time period (8 weeks from the date the of receipt). The employer’s answers can be submitted as evidence before an Employment Tribunal. The employer does not have to answer the questionnaire, and cannot be ordered to respond to it by an Employment Tribunal. But, failure to respond within the time limit and/or ambiguous or evasive responses may be held against the employer. Where an Employment Tribunal believes the employer deliberately and without good reason did not respond within the time limit and/or the responses were evasive or ambiguous, the Race Relations Act 1976 allows the Employment Tribunal to draw any adverse inferences it considers just and equitable, including the inference that the employer committed an unlawful act of discrimination. Thus, an Employment Tribunal could make a finding of race discrimination based solely on the adverse inferences it has drawn regarding the questionnaire; although, in reality, it is unlikely to do that, it could decide to take a serious stance on the employer’s failure to respond properly and be persuaded by it, along with other evidence. The chance of the Employment Tribunal drawing adverse inferences will be increased if the employee had asked reasonable questions and had made efforts to chase the employer and encouraged it to respond properly. The employer will not know the consequences of its failures before it faces the Employment Tribunal, at which time it may be too late for the employer to make good any failings. Thus, an employee who avails himself of the questionnaire procedure automatically gains this tactical advantage.

Such was the situation Santander Abbey National had got itself into. The Employment Tribunal found that Abbey Santander had failed in answering Mr Chagger’s questionnaire. Mr Chagger had asked Santander Abbey National to supply details of legal actions of racial discrimination brought against it since 1 January 2001. Abbey Santander responded with 17 citations of incidents. In respect of 6 of them, dating from 2001 and 2002, Santander Abbey National simply stated that the outcomes of the actions were unknown and that it was unable to obtain information regarding the outcomes during the time period in which the questionnaire had to be responded to; no further answers were ever provided to Mr Chagger. The Employment Tribunal concluded that Santander Abbey National’s response was evasive. Its failure to answer the questionnaire, along with the other evidence in the case, satisfied the Employment Tribunal that Mr Hopkins and Abbey National Santander had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in his dismissal.

The serving of a Race Relations Act Questionnaire RR65 by the employee does not in itself start off any legal proceedings; the initiation of legal proceedings requires a separate procedure. If no legal proceedings are ever initiated, then the employee’s questionnaire and the employer’s responses remain a private matter between the employer and employee. If the employee is seriously contemplating legal action based on the other evidence that suggests race discrimination, then serving a Race Relations Act Questionnaire would be appropriate, because the employer’s response may help the employee to decide. But, if the employee does not have any serious intentions regarding legal action, then to serve a questionnaire would be inappropriate because doing so may unnecessarily vex the employer and/or the responses may affect the employee emotionally into pursuing a legal action he didn’t intend to pursue.

The Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins case did not end at the Employment Tribunal stage. In 2008, it was appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). This year, 2009, the case was appealed to the Court of Appeal (being the second highest court in the land). The Court of Appeal’s List of Hearings showed that the appeal was heard on 7 and 8 July 2009. The Court’s records and judgement of the hearing were not available at the time of writing this article. The 11KBW set of barristers’ chambers had reported that the Court of Appeal hearing was only about compensation (not racial discrimination as well). So, this would seem to suggest that the wrong of race discrimination committed by Abbey National Santander and Nigel Hopkins has been settled by the EAT (it had upheld the original Employment Tribunal’s finding that Mr Hopkins and Santander Abbey National had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in his dismissal).

Employment Grievance Procedure Illustrated With Chagger V Emilio Botin Abbey Banco Santander Group

blogger /

An employment grievance is an issue, complaint or concern over employment rights that the employee brings to the attention of his employer. The grievance may be about such things as employment terms and conditions, health and safety, equal opportunities, organisational change, work relations, working environment, bullying and harassment, and new working practices.

The UK employment grievance procedure is illustrated here with the high-profile Court of Appeal employment race discrimination case Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2009), in which an Employment Tribunal made findings of breach of contract, unfair dismissal and race discrimination, and ordered Emilio Botin Abbey Grupo Santander share price to pay Mr Chagger the record-breaking financial compensation of 2.8 million to cover his loss (Emilio Botin Abbey Santander banking group had refused to reinstate Mr Chagger as ordered by the Employment Tribunal).

Abbey Banco Santander share (the UK high-street bank being re-branded as Santander shares price, and being part of the international Banco Santander Central Hispano Group) dismissed Balbinder Chagger from his Trading Risk Controller position in 2006. Abbey Santander banking claimed the dismissal was the result of a fairly conducted redundancy exercise. Mr Chagger, on the other hand, alleged that his removal was motivated by unfairness and race discrimination. He was of Indian origin, earned about 100,000 per annum and reported into Nigel Hopkins.

There are many benefits in resolving a grievance through informal channels and, wherever possible, the employee should try to achieve this first. Failing that, a formal grievance procedure may be pursued. The procedure is meant to process the grievance with fairness, consistency and speed.

The employee initiates the formal grievance procedure by informing the employer in writing of the grounds of his grievance. The procedure then requires the employer to invite the aggrieved employee to a grievance-hearing meeting to hear the grievance. The grievance hearing must be held within a reasonable time from the date the grievance was raised, usually within 2 weeks. The employee usually has the right to be accompanied to the hearing. At the grievance hearing, the employee explains his grievance and how he would like to see it resolved. The employer is ultimately responsible for deciding how to resolve the grievance. The grievance procedure gives the employer an opportunity to handle the grievance and to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. Once the employer has decided how to resolve the grievance, the employer must notify the employee of the decision in writing, explaining that the decision may be appealed.

If the employee is dissatisfied with the employer’s handling of the grievance and wishes to pursue the grievance further formally, then he may appeal against the employer’s decision. The employee appeals by informing the employer in writing of the grounds of his appeal. The employee normally needs to raise his appeal within 5 days from the grievance outcome. The employer must then invite the employee to an appeal-hearing meeting to hear the appeal. The appeal hearing must be held with a reasonable time from the date the appeal was raised, usually within 2 weeks. The employee usually has the right to be accompanied to the hearing. At the appeal hearing, the employee explains his appeal and how he would like to see it resolved. The employer is ultimately responsible for deciding how to resolve the appeal. The grievance procedure gives the employer another opportunity to handle the grievance and to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. Once the employer has decided how to resolve the appeal, the employer must notify the employee of the decision in writing, explaining that the decision is final and may not be appealed, and that the grievance procedure has been completed and ended.

If at the end of the employer’s handling of the grievance the employee remains dissatisfied with the outcome, then the employee may escalate the his issues to an Employment Tribunal for an independent adjudication. The system of Employment Tribunal is the final channel available to an employee to determine whether or not the employer has acted appropriately. Employment Tribunals will hear disputes regarding unfair dismissal, equal opportunities, discrimination and redundancy payments.

In 2006, Mr Chagger escalated his issues to the Employment Tribunal, alleging unfair dismissal, race discrimination and breach of contract. The Employment Tribunal ruled that Mr Chagger had in fact suffered unfairness and race discrimination from Santander Abbey and from Mr Hopkins, as well as suffering breach of contract from Abbey Santander share.

The Employment Tribunal noted that Mr Chagger had tried to resolve the issues surrounding his dismissal through Abbey Santander’s grievance and appeals procedures. However, the Tribunal found that there was a culture at Santander Abbey of tending to deny and refuse Mr Chagger’s issues, and the issues were simply thrown out of hand by every Abbey Santander officer who had been assigned to decide on them. The Tribunal concluded that Emilio Botin Abbey Santander price had failed to give serious consideration to allegations of racial discrimination and to investigate them promptly.

In 2008, both Abbey Santander banking and Nigel Hopkins appealed against the Employment Tribunal’s ruling of racial discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) rejected their appeal. Thus, the original Employment Tribunal’s ruling that Abbey Grupo Santander share and Nigel Hopkins had discriminated against Mr Chagger had been upheld by the EAT. At the same time, Abbey Banco Santander and Mr Hopkins had also appealed against the record 2.8 million compensation awarded. The EAT accepted this appeal and ordered the financial compensation to be sent back to the original Employment Tribunal for reconsideration on the basis, amongst others, that the Employment Tribunal should have considered whether to reduce the compensation to take account of the chance that Mr Chagger could have been dismissed in any event.

In 2009, Mr Chagger appealed to the UK Court of Appeal against the EAT’s rulings regarding the compensation. The Court of Appeal partly upheld Mr Chagger’s appeal, but upheld the EAT’s ruling that the compensation be sent back to the original Employment Tribunal for reconsideration on the basis that the Employment Tribunal should have considered whether to reduce the compensation to take account of the chance that Mr Chagger could have been dismissed in any event.

Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Nigel Hopkins did not appeal against the EAT’s ruling on race discrimination; they appear to have conceded they racially discriminated against Mr Chagger.