Towards Equality and Diversity,Implementing the Employment and Race Directives:
GMB Response, March 2002
GMB,Britains General Union, represents 700,000 members working throughout the UKin both the private and public sectors. GMB has members working in the areasof:
Financial,commercial, and professional services
Clothingand textiles
Construction
Furnituremanufacturing
Energyand Utilities
Engineering
Foodand leisure
Processindustries
PublicServices
TheGMBs membership is characterised by its diversity and we aim to reflect thatin our structures, our rule book and everything we do.
Nationaland regional Equal Rights Advisory Committees
Nationaland regional Disability Forums
National
NationalYoung Members Bureau and Advisory Committee
Inthis submission we would like to make some points relating to issues raised inPart 1 of the consultation document before responding in detail to thequestions set out in the response form and parts 2 and 3 of the document.
28March 2002
Para2.3 Coverage: We would urge the Government to include goods and serviceswithin legislation implementing the Employment Directive. We strongly supportthe ethos of the consultation document which is to seek to maximise consistencybetween existing and new strands of discrimination legislation. The RaceRelations Act, the Sex Discrimination Act and the Disability Discrimination Actall cover the provision of goods and services. It is inequitable and wrong thatforms of discrimination against lesbian and gay people for example would belawful in areas such as accommodation, healthcare, education and financialservices, but if the same discrimination occurred because of their gender orrace it would be unlawful.
Para2.4 (b)
Workerswhose position in the labour market is precarious or marginal are among themost vulnerable to discrimination and the least able to negotiate fairtreatment. Again we remind the Government of its stated aim: to developeffective legislation which will have a real impact in removing unfairdiscrimination.
Weurge the Government to follow existing discrimination legislation in applyingthe new protections. The SDA, RRA and Equal Pay Act apply to anyone under acontract of service or of apprenticeship or a contract personally to executeany work or labour. The DDA wording is slightly different : under a contractof service or of apprenticeship or a contract personally to do any work.
Para2.4 (d) Exclusion of all state benefits: We accept that state benefits areexcluded from the Directives. But we would nevertheless urge the Government tocommit itself to a fundamental review of the social security system, with aview to comprehensive equality-proofing. For example, many age-relatedprovisions such as those on redundancy payments in insolvency situations arearbitrary and out-of-date. And there are many instances where the systemrecognises the relationships of unmarried heterosexual couples, but not thoseof same-sex couples.
Para2.4 (f) Vocational training: We would wish to ensure that allWelfare to Work schemes are covered, although schemes focused on a particularage group should still be permissible where these are aimed at addressingparticular disadvantages faced by that age group.
Para2.4 (g) Armed forces: We can see no justification for the exclusion of the armedforces from the provisions on age and disability. The diversity of jobs withinthe modern armed forces reflects to a large extent those in civilian life andtherefore should be treated as such.
Para2.12 Support and redress: The task of trade unions or specialinterest groups in supporting claimants and bringing cases would be greatlyassisted if claimants were able to bring class actions. This would removeunnecessary duplication of work in preparing and lodging claims and wouldencourage claimants to come forward in the very difficult and vulnerablecircumstances that usually attend discrimination situations. It would make aparticular difference to the ability to tackle complex areas such as: racediscrimination where unequal pay is based on occupational segregation; andmulti-faceted discrimination, which is going to take on even greater importancewith the new strands.
Classactions are all the more important because the Government does not intend tomake pay equality audits compulsory. The CAC proved a very effective tool inencouraging implementation of non-discriminatory pay structures (eg at LondonBrick, Renold Ltd and Prestcold Ltd). This was done through collective remedyprovisions in the Equal Pay Act which were abolished by the ConservativeGovernment. The CAC looked behind labels to test for covert discrimination. Theability to take class actions would allow this kind of approach to bere-introduced.
Wewould also like to state that we have grave concerns about the provisions onEmployment Tribunals and unfair dismissal in the current Employment Bill. TheDTI has received separate representations from us on this issue, but we wouldlike to state here that we believe they will deter the most vulnerable workersfrom enforcing their rights, particularly in discrimination cases, because oftheir difficult nature.
Para2.13 (c) We believe it is vital to establish as a general principle,rather than in certain situations, that complainants can seek redress afterthe employment relationship hasended. This issue has arisen in relation to discrimination and victimisationin work-references provided once employment has ended. It may also arise wherea worker tries to pursue a grievance with an employer after the employmentrelationship has ended.
Theremay also be cases where discriminationis experienced in relation to a employment benefits which continue afterretirement such as the use of sports or social facilities, or travelconcessions. Workers ought to have clear redress in these circumstances.
Paras2.14 2.15
Tribunalsshould have the power to make recommendations on reducing the adverse effectsof unlawful discrimination generally. They should also be able to ensure thatremedies are effective, in terms of claimants ability to access them. In casessuch as those currently supported by the GMB involving the exclusion ofpart-time, mainly female, workers from occupational pension schemes, remedieswhich may be ordered by tribunals are likely to rely on low-paid women being ina position to pay back contributions. Many will be unable to do so if paymentis required in a lump sum, leaving them with no remedy at all.
Para2.16 Shift of burden of proof: We welcome the shift in the burden ofproof once a prima facie case has been established. But we are concerned aboutthe requirement that the claimant must produce clear evidence that discriminationhas taken place. The definition of this will be crucial. When people rightlyfeel they have been discriminated against, it is often difficult to obtainevidence. We accept that mere feelings cannot necessarily justify pursuing aclaim. However, a clear evidence requirement may be to strict a test to rootout discrimination.
Paras2.18-2.19 Victimisation: Under existing statutes it has beenvery difficult to establish that victimisation has occurred due to thedifficulty of proving links between events. We therefore believe that thereshould be no need for a comparator, that there should be a fast-track interimrelief procedure and that post employment victimisation be specificallyincluded. We would therefore call for a fundamental review of victimisationprovisions across the statutes, with a view to improving complainants accessto protection in this area.
Paras3.1(b) and 3.2: We endorse the Governments desire to seek greater coherenceand consistency between the strands of discrimination legislation. We believethe most effective way of doing this would be to move towards a single equalityact. This will enable claims of multiple discrimination to be dealt with on thebasis of a one-stop-shop. It will reduce the burden on claimants who wouldotherwise have to take separate claims, as well as relieving the pressure onthe tribunal system and the public purse.
Furthermore,we believe that the Government should introduce the Directive rights through anEquality Bill 2003 which would enable it to take a more coherent andcomprehensive approach to these important new provisions, such as extendingthem to goods and services and making harmonising amendments to the SDA. We believethat in areas such as age discrimination the need for primary legislation togetherwith a statutory code of practice is particularly pressing, because thevoluntarist approach has signally failed.
Webelieve that Government should also review the range of Conventions and
Para3.3 (c): In view of the above points on the need for a singleequality act, and the failure of the Voluntary Code on Age Discrimination tohave any impact, we would urge the Government to bring forward legislation onage discrimination rather than take up until 2006 to implement it. TheEmployers Forum on Age recently reported that three in ten employers had neverheard of the Code of Practice, while over two-thirds considered it would makeno difference to the way they ran their business.
Q5 Do you agree with ourapproach on direct discrimination?
The GMBis concerned about conflicting interpretations of the requirement that therelevant circumstances be the same or not materially different fordiscrimination to be found. In Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC, 2001 IRLR520, the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal took a very restrictive view of thecircumstances required for a comparator to be valid. Contrast this decisionwith Chief Constable of West Yorkshire v Vento , 2001 IRLR 125, where the EATsaid it did not matter that there was not an exact match with thecircumstances/situation of the comparators.
We wouldtherefore ask the Government to have another look at how a comparablesituation is defined.
We wouldalso recommend that the opportunity is taken to review another key aspect ofthe definition of discrimination. A key difference between SDA/RRA and the DDAis that the former refer to discrimination on the grounds of race and groundof sex, whereas the definition in the DDA refers to discrimination for a
We favour option 1 because it isvital that we achieve as much consistency as possible across the statutes. Thisis beneficial both for workers and for employers as they seek to understandthese new rights, particularly as discrimination often occurs on multiplegrounds. We welcome the expansion in the definition to cover provisions,criteria or practices. We believe this goes closer to capturing the range ofcircumstances that can give rise to discriminatory outcomes and closer fits thepost-McPherson understanding of discriminatory processes.
The inconvenience caused by morewholesale amendments to the RRA is outweighed by these benefits.
On a related point, case law hasclarified that intention is irrelevant in both direct and indirectdiscrimination. However, we believe that it would aid clarity and promotegreater understanding if an express term were incorporated into legislationstating that discrimination can occur without intention.
We favour option 2 aswe would not want to see any undermining of the protection against harassmentalready established by case law under UK sex and race discrimination law. Boththe Employment and Race Directives state that they should not be used tojustify any regression in the level of protection existing in Member States.Again there are great benefits to be had in ensuring a single consistentdefinition across the statutes. That is why we would urge the Government toamend the SDA without waiting for the Equal Treatment Directive as this islikely to provide a superior level of protection which will therefore not haveto be amended.
It is a logical andhelpful step to incorporate case law so as to make it explicit that harassmentconstitutes discrimination. But we would want to see the detail of how thiswould be done to ensure that it is effective. And we would urge that thereshould be no requirement for a comparator in making a harassment claim. Thisunnecessarily restricts the number of people who can pursue cases of what issurely one of the most damaging and pernicious forms of discrimination both forthe victim, their colleagues and the employer whose workplace it affects.
We are alarmed thatthe Government is considering a reasonable person test. Harassment situationsare extremely distressing and arduous in terms of assembling the necessaryevidence. This proposal would create an extra hurdle which may have the effectof deterring applicants who are already facing a high degree of intimidation,and will further complicate tribunal proceedings by adding in a whole layer ofuncertainty regarding the definition of a reasonable person. There are alreadyplenty of safeguards to deter and deal with frivolous and vexatious complaints.
Single equality commission
Thearguments for a single statutory equality commission in the longer term maywell be compelling. However, we believe that such a move should follow ratherthan precede a move to a single equality act which brings all the strands ofdiscrimination together coherently. Inthis regard we believe there is a need to monitor closely developments inNorthern Ireland including the evolving experience of the Equality Commissionfor Northern Ireland and the impact of a proposed single equality act there.Having said that, there must be a degree of caution what works for apopulation of only 1.5 million may not have wider applicability.
We havegeneral concerns about a single commission which centre on the likelyemergence of a pecking order with difficult issues or those where expertiseis lacking falling to the bottom of the pile. We are also concerned thatcommissions might be merged for solely economic reasons.
And we have specific concernsrelating to the work of the Disability Rights Commission. Having only beenestablished in April 2000, it needs time to settle in.
Any proposal, at this stage, tomerge the DRC would have an adverse impact on the disabled community whichcampaigned for so long for a commission with proper representation of disabledpeople within its structures. There is a legitimate fear that once merged intoa larger commission disability discrimination could be one of the strands whichfalls down the pecking order. If a single commission were to be created in thelonger term, the GMB would want the following commitments:
no reduction in the resourcesavailable to tackle disability discrimination;
the same level of protection for allforms of discrimination; and
real influence for disabled peopleover decisions that effect their rights and opportunities through effectiverepresentation.
In the short to medium term wesee no bar to a coherent approach and integrated advice being achieved byseparate commissions, for example through promoting closer working andco-operation. Even more important in our view is ensuring proper andsustainable funding for commissions.
We support the list oforganisations provided in para 8.7 and would add law centres and lobby groupssuch as Stonewall, Justice and others with a special interest in the area.
In our comments above on the move to a single equality commission westressed the importance in the short to medium term of properly fundedcommissions working together. This raises the question of where in the short tomedium term responsibility for support on the new grounds should fall.
The GMBcan see considerable merit in extending the remit of the EOC to cover sexualorientation as a result of case law which has established an overlap betweengender and sexual orientation issues in some instances. Gender and sexualorientation are related concepts.
There hasalso been case law which has established that some religious groupings areco-terminous with ethnic grouping eg Jews, while some are not eg Muslims.However, religion and belief raise some very complex issues and considerationswhich are quite separate from race and ethnicity. There is often norelationship at all between the concepts of religion and ethnicity. We can seesome justification for placing religious discrimination within the CRE, as ithas some experience in this area, but we would wish to consider this matterfurther.
And wereject the suggestion (see Equal Opportunities Review, January 2002, p 13) thatresponsibility for age discrimination should or could be placed with theDisability Rights Commission. In our view,this lacks any logical basis, as the two grounds are entirely unrelated.Until a single commission is established the GMB calls for a specific age commissionto be set up. Government policy on age is driven as much by its labourmarket agenda as by its equality agenda. Thereclearly is a need for an effectively resourced age commission to be establishedto inform, advise and enforce. Such a commission needs to raise publicawareness and understanding, particularly to ensure that age discrimination isnot seen as simply something which affects older people.
We believe that all commissions shouldhave both educational and policing roles as they complement each other.
Socialdialogue
Both Directives refer to the need forMember States to promote dialogue between the social partners in fosteringequal treatment (Articles 13 Employment, and 11 Race). We believe that theGovernment could do more to meet these requirements, for example by extendingPartnership funding and support specifically to workplace projects whichpromote equality on the new grounds. Article 17 (Race) and Article 19(Employment) require Member States to compile reports every five years on theapplication of Directive legislation. We believe that the Government would begreatly assisted in its ability to compile such information if it were tointroduce compulsory equality audits for employers. We also look forward to theGovernment consulting widely before drawing up such reports.
Dissemination
We believe that providing support andguidance will be made much easier if there is a well-resourced disseminationprogramme to promote awareness of the new rights. One suggestion would beadvertising campaigns like those the Government has run on new social securitybenefits (eg WFTC) and the National Minimum Wage. An imaginative approach todistributing literature could see availability in supermarkets as well as themore traditional outlets such as CABx and law centres which rely on peoplehaving already identified a problem.
Chapter 9: Occupationalrequirements
In general we agree with theapproach outlined as we believe listing permissible occupational requirementsis too blunt an instrument and allows too much latitude. Instead, we believethat legislation should require that exceptions are to be strictly limited tothose which are an essentially defining feature of the job and can beobjectively justified.
We agree that the same approachneeds to be applied to the RRA.
Chapter 10: Positive action
The Directives allow MemberStates to maintain or adopt specific measures to prevent or compensate fordisadvantages. This does not preclude positive discrimination and we wouldtherefore argue that there is considerable scope for further and more effectiveaction beyond the rather limited provisions allowed under the RRA and SDA.These have not been used very effectively.
Following Kallanke (a positivediscrimination case) the European Commission issued a recommendation to permitcertain forms of affirmative action and this was incorporated into Article 141of the European Treaty, admittedly on a permissive rather than mandatory basis.Such measures are also proposed in Action Programmes established by the EC. Webelieve it is increasingly recognised that laws adopted 20-30 years ago are notnow sufficient to achieve equality. More needs to be done to removeinequalities, and therefore Government should allow preference to be given,where candidates are equally qualified, to those from under-represented groups.
We also call on the Government toextend the positive duty on the public sector to promote equality, containedwithin the Race Relations Amendment Act, to gender equality, disability and allthe areas now covered by the Directives. (This was one of the measures includedin Government proposals on extending the DDA Towards Inclusion referred to in Chapter 14 of the consultation).
Reservedseats on elective bodies
Thereis a further measure which we believe the Government could use this
Inproportion to their participation in theworkforce, black and ethnic minority workers are under-represented insenior positions in trade unions' lay structures. In itself, this underrepresentation constitutes a measure of inequality. Furthermore, it impedes progress towards tackling inequality inthe workplace. Our experience is that reserved seats on the GMB CentralExecutive Council have improved womens participation and integration.
Weask the Government to introduce into the RRA a provision equivalent to section49 of the SDA. Race reserved seats should be permitted (though not obligatory)provided a trade union is satisfied that they are needed to secure a reasonablelower limit to the number of members of one or more ethnic minorities servingon the relevant elective body.
Part 3: Strand specific issues
Yes, we consider that there canbe no justification for such discrimination which has led to exploitation ofseaworkers from developing countries.
Yes
We can see no reason forcharities to continue to be exempt from the provisions of the RRA. They will beable to rely on the genuine occupational requirement provisions referred to inquestions 11 and 12.
Again, we believe there shouldnot be an exemption for charities from the RRA in relation to goods, facilitiesand services. A specific exception of the kind proposed is a sensible wayforward.
We agree that this provision isnot appropriate as there are many and varied occupations and services whichcome under this heading where individuals and organisations are experiencingdiscrimination which is unjust and damaging.
Again we welcome the removal ofthe small dwellings exemption. Housing has long been an area of significant andpersistent discrimination and this loophole has been exploited for too long. Weare not convinced that the Government should be sanctioning discrimination byhouseholders in the taking of lodgers, but we recognise that to enforcenon-discrimination here would be impractical. We would recommend that thisexception is kept under review with a view to revisiting it if for examplethere is a noticeable expansion in this type of accommodation.
Chapter 12: Sexual orientation:some specific issues
Unlike race or sex and to somedegree religion, disability and age, sexual orientation can be the focus ofvicious gossip, rumour and innuendo which is difficult to pin down because itrests on speculation about a personsstatus, where this may be unknown. Also unique to this area is the widespreadexperience among gay, lesbian and bi-sexual workers of being the subject ofmalicious allegations. We do not propose a different test for harassment, butthere should be detailed guidance and this should also be borne in mind indrawing up the general definition of harassment. We also re-iterate the pointthat there should be no requirement for a comparator in harassment cases.
We believe that it would behelpful to specify homosexual, heterosexual and bi-sexual orientation to aidunderstanding, but we propose consideration be given to an additional catch-allalong the lines of all forms of sexual orientation between consenting adults.
Legislation and guidance willhave to be drafted so as to capture perceived as well as actual sexualorientation, lifestyles, and relationships which may not have a sexualcomponent.
While we accept that genderre-assignment is covered in the SDA, it appears that indirect discrimination relatingto gender re-assignment is not covered. Government should look again to ensurethat this is addressed. One proposal would be to provide protected statussimilar to that for pregnant women for persons undertaking or consideringgender re-assignment.
We also raise the question oftransvestites who we believe must also be protected from discrimination. Wouldthey be covered under the SDA or under the proposals on sexual orientation?
Para 12.8:
It is grossly unfair to allow asituation where marital status can continue to be used as a proxy todiscriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. The Government now has theopportunity to legislate to remove this unfairness and make it clear thatexcluding unmarried spouses is indirectly discriminatory on the grounds ofsexual orientation. This will also benefit the millions of heterosexual coupleswho live in unmarried partnerships and will remove the discriminatory effect onthe women in these partnerships who are most disadvantaged because theiraverage earning power is less than mens.
But the Government should gofurther and consider the desirability of extending equal treatment to singlepeople ie to prevent discrimination on the basis of marital
Chapter 13: Religion: somespecific issues
We accept that it should be leftto the Courts to resolve definitional issues as they arise the alternative oftrying to construct an approved list of religions or beliefs would beimpractical and too rigid. Courts have had experience of this under theEuropean Convention on Human Rights and have looked for spiritual orphilosophical conviction with a formal content.
We also assume that protectionwill be extended to the absence of religion or belief.
We are concerned that thedocument states in para 13.5 that political belief is not covered by theDirective. There is no indication in the Directive or recitals that this is thecase.
Some belief systems containpolitical content, and some political belief is based on profoundly heldphilosophical conviction. We are not sure that simply exempting politicalbelief per se would be helpful or easy to achieve. Rather it would be better totake the requirement for deeply held conviction with formal content as the basepoint.
Article 14 of the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights includes political or other opinion and the FairEmployment (N.I.) Act 1976 includes religious belief or political opinion.So, specifically exempting political belief will create anomalous situations.The Northern Ireland legislation has been interpreted so that political opiniondoes not have to be linked to religious belief, or to the Unionist/Nationalistdivide to be protected (McKay v Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance andanother, 26 October 1994 CA (NI)).
Other Member States such asFrance have interpreted the Directives as outlawing discrimination on the basisof political opinion.
We understand the sensitivitiessurrounding political belief. However, there are considerable safeguardsavailable. Article 2(5) makes clear that the Directive is without prejudice tomeasures necessary for the prevention of criminal offences, protection ofhealth and the rights and freedoms of others. Human rights law allowslimitations to be placed on the manifestation of religion or belief to protectsecurity, well-being etc. Protection under the Fair Employment and Treatment(NI) Order 1998 does not extend to political opinion supporting the use ofviolence.
Situations may arise where theholding of a particular political belief could bring a person into conflictwith the rules of an organisation. In some cases these may be covered bygenuine occupational requirements. Criteria, practices or provisions with whichsomeone of a particular political belief would find it harder to comply, are ofcourse open to the defence of objective justification.
Should it be lawful, for example,for an oil company or construction company which has attracted bad publicity onits human rights record to refuse to employ someone holding a profoundphilosophy of human rights, because the company is afraid that person may notbe loyal? Or for a merchant bank to refuse to employ someone because they havea profound belief in socialism? More difficult perhaps (certainly fororganisations like the GMB) is the example of the refusal by a public authorityto employ someone who believes in fascism. Aside from any criminal issues whichcould arise, the view one would take would depend on how the individualsbelief manifested itself, how it affected their ability to fulfil the statedduties of the job, and whether it brought them into conflict with the rules ofthe organisation.
In sum, we would ask theGovernment to look again at how to deal with political belief we are notconvinced that there is a case for a blanket exclusion.
Practicalissues for all employers
Although it does not appear as aseparate question on the response form, para 13.9 asks for views on what advicethe Government should offer to employers on practical issues such as diet,dress and religious observance.
The GMB has long had this sort ofissue on our bargaining agenda, reflected in many of our collective agreements.Below we set out the main issues we have focused on:
Religiousor belief-based organisations
Whilst we are reasonablycomfortable with the provisions in paras 13.11 and 13.12 which relate togenuine occupational requirements, we are very concerned about paras13.13 and13.14.
The implications of allowingdisciplinary action on the basis of conduct inconsistent with an organisationsethos or belief are potentially very dangerous and could be taken to legitimisediscrimination on other protectedgrounds. Can a religious organisation sack a woman who becomes pregnant outsidemarriage? Or a homosexual, even if they hold that faith?
Berrisford v Woodard Schools(Midland Division) Ltd ,1991 IRLR 247 illustrates the difficulty. A schoolmatron at a Church of England boarding school was sacked after she becamepregnant, on the grounds that she did not plan to marry. This was upheld by theEAT as not in contravention of the SDA and the EEC Equal Treatment Directive.There was however, a minority view that the dismissal was for pregnancy andtherefore automatically discriminatory.
We disagree with the proposal toallow organisations which have an ethos based on religion or belief to pursueemployment policies necessary to preserve that ethos. This is too open-ended.There must be clear provisos that these employment policies cannot be used todeny other employment rights. Furthermore there must be a requirement forproportionality in any such policies.
On the issue of which posts andorganisations should be covered (para 13.15) we believe there should beguidance to assist employers in making such considerations and this should makeclear that support and ancillary jobs should not generally be included.
Chapter 14 Disability: some specificissues
DisabilityRights Taskforce Recommendations
While the GMB welcomes thecommitment to the removal of the threshold on the number of employees and theremoval of the current occupational exemptions referred to in para 14.2 muchmore needs to be done. The GMB would encourage the Government to go beyond theminimum requirements contained in the Directive. Like many other organisationsrepresenting disabled people, the GMB is concerned at the lack of progress madesince the government published TowardsInclusion and the lack of indication as to when or how the Governmentproposes to implement it.
The GMB considers that the time isnow ripe for a Disability Bill to be introduced to implement the DisabilityRights Task Forces recommendations in full so that protection is afforded intransport and housing and extended to cover police, fire service, prisonofficers and the armed forces. We can envisage no justification for theexclusion of the armed forces from protection particularly when it is recognisedthat it is important that disabledpeoples access to civil rights applies across a comprehensive range ofemployment and occupations.
The GMB regrets that the Governmentwas unable to support Lord Ashleys Disability Discrimination (Amendment) Billwhen it received its Committee Stage in the House of Lords (6 March 2002). Inour view, Lord Ashleys Bill was a laudable attempt to address many of theoutstanding issues.
We also take this opportunity tore-emphasise our support for DisabilityRights Commission to be granted authority to take proceedings under the HumanRights Act.
.
Direct discrimination
The GMB welcomes the intention (para 14.16) to change the definition of direct discrimination in order toremove the open-ended justification defence which currently applies.
Reasonable adjustments and indirect discrimination
We believe, as the consultationdocument recognises (paras 14.7-14.10), that there is a need for greaterconsistency across the various areas of discrimination law. Therefore, the GMBconsiders that the concept of indirect discrimination should be applied to theDDA in addition to the existing duty to make reasonable adjustments. The twoconcepts are clearly different but because of the nature of disabilitydiscrimination we recommend that the duty to make reasonable adjustments shouldremain, in order to ensure the principle of non-regression which is containedin the Directive.
Moreover, the GMB supports theDisability Rights Commissions proposal that the duty to make reasonableadjustments in employment is made an anticipatory one, thus requiring employersto be proactive and to consider reasonable adjustments in advance rather thanresponding to a complaint by an individual. Service providers already have thisobligation under Part III of the DDA. Extending the duty to employers wouldclearly encourage good practice and promote an equality, rather than a merecompliance, approach. Such a change would meet the Governments objectives bymaking the law more coherent and simpler to understand.