h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.serco.com/media/pressreleases/2006/courtofappealbnpruling.asp

Basically, a bus driver was sacked after becoming a BNP councillor. His employers took the view that he was putting their customers at risk.

It's not quite clear, but he seems to have contested his dismissal on race discrimination grounds, which has been dismissed.

I would have thought his dismissal was unlawful if his membership of a political party was the sole reason.

Need more information. If he was appealing specifically on racial discrimination grounds then clearly he's got no case. If he was to appeal that his views did not consitute a health and safety risk, or that the employer was wrong in making an assumption on his views based on his membership/representation of the BNP, then I don't know.

Well it appears that he wanted to appeal for unfair dismissal - a case he would have, obviously I hope, won. However he had worked for Serco for less than a year, so was unable to use that claim - you have to have worked for a company for more than 12 months for unfair dismissal.

He therefore tried to claim racial discrimination, which frankly was a non-starter, but did get some publicity.

However it is specious of Serco to try to claim they did it for safety reasons.

Ironically, he is now going to use the HRA to continue fighting the decision

I can see a logic to their argument.

This guy has effectively made himself a target for every 'radical' black/asian/ANL youth that lives within a five mile radius of wghatever route he is driving on any given day. I can see how that might very well affect the safety of his passengers.

Though I'm kind of surprised that they didn't go down the route of 'we are an equal opportnity employer, and your stated political beliefs lead us to believe that your continued presence in the workforce may initimidate others'.

However much I may disgare with his politics, if he's supposedly made himself a target for *illegal* violent action from people who disagree with his opinions, it doesn't seem a huge leap from that scenario to any number of other ones where someone has views that some other people may disgree with.

Yes, and if he was a member of New Labour he would of course be a possible target for middle eastern terrorists wanting revenge for Iraq, and so a danger to his passengers. Seems like a rather flimsy reason to fire him.

As I say, I would have gone down the 'intimidating others in an equal opportunity workplace' route.

I was merely pointing out *how* what they done can, and doubtless will be justified. I wasn't saying it was right.

Yes I'm sure there are some legal loopholes. But your "I can see some logic to their arguments" comment made it seem like you agreed with Serco's decision. Which seems no better than firing someone for joining a union or similar.

No. Serco have a duty of care to their passengers that extends beyond running a bus on time. One of those duties almost certainly includes not willingly or knowingly placing those passengers in fear of physical danger *whatever8 the cause, legal or illegal.

Having a *known* racist as a bus driver might well be seen in these over-litigious times as allowing such a risk to knowingly to happen.

It's not remotely comparable to joining a union because joinig a union is unlikely to 'per se' make you a victim of violence.

Well, what if some bus driver in the Southern US in the 60s married a black woman. He might face violence over that, would you think they should have kept him from driving a bus?

I don't suppose the phrases 'duty of care' or 'ambulance chaser' were much in the vocabulary during the early 60's in Alabama.

I suspect you just would have been sacked for marrying a black woman under those circumstances. With no right of appeal or HRA to fall back on.

>>"One of those duties almost certainly includes not willingly or knowingly placing those passengers in fear of physical danger *whatever* the cause, legal or illegal."

The idea that some people *might* decide to attack someone at work, and that other people *might* get caught up in the attack seems very tenuous justification for sacking someone.
Should someone be sacked if they or their partner has a jealous ex-lover?
Should someone be sacked if they are a campaigner for women's rights in a 'traditional' community?

Surely, there should be some reasonableness applied to passenger's fears, or manager's worst-case assessments of passenger's fears.
At the extreme end, "there *could* be fears of violence" is a cop-out usable to cover practically any decision with a veneer of health-and-safety concern.
Unless an alleged risk can be vaguely quantified, using it as an excuse for dismissal would seem to be hard to justify.

Hi B S

As a matter of fact SERCO have ,or had, a Duty of Care for their employee. It seems his case fell apart because he had not completed 12 months service, and as such a Tribunal has no powers to hear a claim for Unfair Dismissal.

Novo

Well, that sorts that one out then.

What's the reason for that rule, though?

364 days and it could be unfair dismissal, 366 days (or 367) and it's suddenly a different kettle of fish?

I suspect that it was an arbitrary time which an administration decided was reasonable to spot you had a square peg in a round hole. Like all arbitrary figures it makes little sense in the actuality. Why is 'one year and one day' for culpability of death in the UK? Basically there has to be a limit and that was the one fixed.

Going back to the original point, let's look at it the other way.

Let's say that somebody hoiks a brick at a bus driven by this man. For whatever reason that causes the bus to crash and passengers are injured.

Following that, can I envisage the passengers hiring ambulance chasers to sue SERCO on the grounds that they might reasonably have anticipated that a BNP councillor would be a target for attacks of this nature?

Yes I can.

Can I envisage, in this litigous age, such a claim being upheld by the Courts?

Yes I can. Regrettably.

I therefore have to conclude that SERCO have a duty to deal with the problem before that stage is reached.

Yes but given the way the tories are disliked I can see that happening if you were a memeber of the Conservative party and if someone was fired for that then they would (rightfully) be up in arms about it so it was to apply to the BNP as well. Otherwise anyone who might not be liked in the area can be fired for not being popular.

"A free society is one in which it is safe to be unpopular"

>>"Following that, can I envisage the passengers hiring ambulance chasers to sue SERCO on the grounds that they might reasonably have anticipated that a BNP councillor would be a target for attacks of this nature?"

There's a tenuous argument that someone might possibly have expected someone possibly could have been attacked at work for their political views.
However, for someone to reasonably expect that someone *would* be attacked for their politics, it would seem to me that there'd really have to be some kind of history of such attacks at work against the individual, or against people of their particular grouping.
Even then, I'm not sure that attacks based on someone's politics are any better grounds for sacking them than attacks based on any other grounds. "What's that - you're escaping an arranged marriage? Better clear off then, I don't want any trouble around here."

'Someone possibly could sue us' would be a very weak argument for people to use who lack the balls or the honesty to say why they really decided to get rid of someone.

Hold on.

Membership of the BNP is perfectly legal.
Having political opinions is perfectly legal.
Being a racist is perfectly legal - acting with racist intent isn't.

This guy wasn't sacked for misconduct, bad timekeeping, poor job performance, complaints or anything like that.

He was fired for being a member of a right wing party.

He was fired because un-named others "might" commit illegal acts.
They would commit these crimes not because of his actions, but because of his opinions.

He has committed no crime, but others might? Have we reached "Minority Report" technology then? Do we pass judgement on people before a crime has been perpetrated AGAINST them?

This decision gives carte blanche to employers, allowing them to fire members of the BNP with impunity. What next? Will we see a PC version of Kristall Nacht?

Would the judgement have been the same had he been a member of the Jewish Socialists Group or the Orange Lodge? What if he had been a member of Sinn Fein? Are we saying that political parties who represent minority interests are to have their employment rights removed from them?

What's the chances of Mudassar Arani, that doyen of civil liberties helping him take his case to Brussels?