Redfearn v. Serco Ltd

"Redfearn v. Serco Ltd." [2006] [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/659.html EWCA Civ 659] ; [2006] IRLR 623 is an interesting UK labour law case concerning an indirect race discrimination case under the Race Relations Act 1976. The real issue was a 'political belief', and so it may be helpful in understanding the new Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, which had not come into effect when the case was brought.

Facts

Arthur Redfearn was a bus driver for Serco Ltd, trading as West Yorkshire Transport Service, for Bradford City Council. He was disabled and drove a bus for disabled people. He had been rated as a first class employee by his Asian supervisor, with whom he got along well. But then he was elected as councillor for Bradford, representing the white supremacist British National Party. The council had words with Serco, who said that on "health and safety" grounds he would be made redundant. The idea, they alleged, was that in an area with large ethnic populations, his profile would make him a target for violent attacks, and that could make for an unsafe bus service.

Redfearn alleged that he was being indirectly racially discriminated against under s.1(1)(a) of the Race Relations Act 1976, ‘on racial grounds’, because a member of the BNP was more likely to be white. To secure a finding of "indirect discrimination" you need to show that some rule, which on the face of it looks neutral, has a disproportionate impact on one particular racial group. If this is show, then the employer may raise a defence by showing that their rule (i.e. no BNP) is "objectively justified" in pursuit of a "legitimate aim". Redfearn lost at trial, and on appeal, and then went to the Court of Appeal to try again.

Judgment

Mummery LJ held that any dismissal was justified, in the legitimate aim of seeking to protect health and safety of passengers. He made the point quite clearly that the purpose of the race discrimination rules was to combat the state of mind that breeds intolerance, not protect it.

Furthermore, there was no human rights claim for Redfearn. David Pannick QC, acting for Serco Ltd submitted correctly that Art.17 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that nothing in the Convention should allow rights for any group to engage in activity aimed at destroying Convention rights.

ee also

*Employment discrimination law in the UK
*"Showboat Entertainment Centre Ltd v. Owens" [1984] 1 WLR 384

Notes

External links

* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/5015500.stm BBC News article] on Redfearn's case