In the recent case of Famy against Hilton Hotels UK Ltd [2006], complained to a staff member of discrimination in relation to career opportunities. The worker was a Filipino background and was seen as a bar in central London supervisor from June 1984 to October 2004. During this time the position of the bar manager was several times available. But it was always external candidates who have been designated. The vacancies were advertised externally and internally. If the positions are available, the employees were not formally requested, and subsequently have not for a promotion.
In one case in 2000, workers for a vacancy as a bar manager. He was informed that the position no longer existed due to the restructuring of the catering department. After the restructuring in 2004, was once again the position advertised both externally and internally This new position was responsible for the management of the three bars, all within the hotel. The staff expressed a desire for the administration of the cocktail bar, but no such position exists. The employer states that bar manager role was for all three bars. Since the employees do not want all three, he did not vote for the role.
The employee then has a complaint against the employer, and performed in early December 2004. He complained that he repeatedly overlooked for the position as bar manager. He issued proceedings before the Employment Tribunal ( "Tribunal"). He argued the following:
* The lack of promoting him to a bar manager was accused of racial discrimination by the employer and
* The complaint was tainted by racial discrimination.
The court ruled against the workers, because there is no sufficient evidence to racial discrimination by the employer. The employee subsequently appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal ( "eat"). The complaint was dismissed.
The EAT found the following on the basis of the facts before them:
* The positions had been advertised both internally and externally
* The applicants for the positions had actually used it
* The employee was not for the positions and
* If the employee had applied for the position of bar manager, the position does not exist.
The EAT ruled that the plaintiffs, who were determined to have the items in the same manner as the workers. Under these circumstances, the employee is not a case for racial discrimination. The court was to rule that there is no discrimination.
© RT Coopers, 2006. This background information is not a comprehensive or complete statement of the law on the issues can not be considered legal advice. It is only on general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to the particular circumstances.
Media Law & employment law firm advising media and entertainment industry films, TV, Television, Music lawyers, attorneys Media, Entertainment Lawyers Media Contract, Employment solicitors, employment law, employment lawyers, employment law firm, Redundancies, Unfair dismissals, BREACH OF CONTRACT, disputes in the workplace, TUPE Transfers, Drafting Employment Contracts, complaint procedures, disciplinary procedures, maternity rights, discrimination, Employment Disputes, suspensions, wrongful dismissal, Equal Pay, Media Copyright.
0 ความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น