Society slams ‘flawed’ logic on harassment liability plan
The Law Society has criticised the ‘fundamentally flawed’ logic behind government plans to scrap an employer’s liability for a third party’s harassment of an employee.
The plan, set out in a Government Equalities Office consultation which closed on 7 August, argues that such liability is an ‘onerous’ burden on business and, along with a raft of other employment red tape, discourages employers from taking on more staff.
The Society responds that the government has ‘not detailed or quantified’ the burden that the present third party harassment rules impose on employers and also that there is ‘no reported evidence that this burden is onerous’.
Current provisions require employers to act when they have been informed of the harassment and when it has happened on at least two previous occasions. The employer is not held responsible for the third party’s actions, but is held liable for failing to address them.
The consultation document also argues that the provisions serve no useful purpose because there have been few prosecutions under them.
The Society, in its response, points to 2007 research showing considerable evidence of third party harassment, in particular on the grounds of race and sexual orientation. It argues that the few prosecutions that have taken place since the Equality Act 2010 came into force show that the provisions have a deterrent effect, with employers displaying notices warning customers that harassment will not be tolerated and advising staff on what to do should such harassment occur.
The Society’s response adds that alternative ways of raising proceedings against third party harassers, such as claiming under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, would also place an administrative burden on employers and require appearing before a criminal court, which is more costly than appearing at a tribunal.
‘The logic behind the proposal to remove (the provisions) because only a few cases are brought and that it places a regulatory burden on employers is fundamentally flawed,’ the response said.
Comments
Liability for Third Party Harassment
Yet again the Law Society is using its voice in a political cause rather than using its remaining influence to represent solicitors. The case against an employer have liability for third party harassment of an employee was obvious from the start: how can an employer be responsible for the actions of third parties over whom it has no effective control? The case in favour of these provisions was made by Trade Unions and equality interest groups who want to use employment law to change society and have no consideration of the effect on employers and employment. The matter is political and the Law Society should refrain from spending our money and using our voice in political arguments.
liability for third party harassment
I believe it s very foolish to suggest even for a moment that this issue is political. One only need to look at the harrowing pain inflicted on victims not only by co-workers but other third parties while the employers pretended not to notice. This is another attack by this present government on those they have never pretended to care about as long as it festers the nests of those of the same class as themselves.
liability for third party harassment
Or feathers, even!
Political
@Sam
But everything you have just said is political. It does not concern the implementation of the law, or the legal procedure.
It concerns a policy decision, namely, should employers or their insurers have certain duties and liabilities to their employees or not. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer. Some people, including yourself, think that there should be such liability. Other people, for quite logical and understandable reasons, think that there ought not to be.
I would be in favour of liability up to a point if it can be proven that the employer has breached their duty of care to their employees. Anything above that is too nanny state, "infant world" (to borrow an expression another poster on here used a few weeks back) for my own liking.
As a solicitor, my job is to advise on, and implement the law according to what it is. I am entitled to my opinion - as is everyone else - as to how the law ought to be changed. But if the committee members of the law society want to pressurise the Government to change the law, they ought to form some sort of voluntary group to do so, not use my money, which I am required by statute to pay, and use my Law Society, founded by Royal Charter and underpinned by the law, for their purposes.
I think you should stick with
I think you should stick with 'festering the nest! ' It makes so much more sense that way.