Education Law Speed Read – 16/10/17
16th October, 2017
This week's Speed Read looks at the introduction of T levels and highlights the importance of equality training for your staff.
First new T levels announced
The move to implement T levels has been dubbed by the Government as the ‘biggest ever overhaul of technical education to deliver a skills revolution for Brexit Britain’ and on 11 October 2017, Education Secretary, Justine Greening, confirmed that the first three T levels to be made available to students were to be Education and Childcare, Digital, and Construction.
The Education and Childcare T level is aimed at those entering roles such as teaching assistants, youth workers and nursery assistants.
The three new T levels will be taught from 2020, with the full set of T levels (which will include other ‘pathways’ such as engineering and manufacturing and health and science) being made available by 2022. The qualification will be equivalent to A levels.
The overhaul in vocational skills is a result of the Independent Panel on Technical Education chaired by Lord David Sainsbury which found that the current vocational training system is too complex and contains too many different qualifications. Despite this, T levels will sit alongside other vocational qualifications such as BTEC’s and will not replace them entirely.
On announcing the new T levels, the Education Secretary said:
“As we prepare to leave the EU, it is more important than ever that we create an outstanding further education and skills system, giving all young people the opportunity to fulfil their potential and deliver a better future for our country.
As part of making sure that the technical education ladder reaches every bit as high as the academic one, I want to see T levels that are as rigorous and respected as A levels.”
Ndebele v A Bubble Company Limited
In the case of Ndebele v A Bubble Company Limited a female claimant brought a claim of direct sex discrimination for being prevented from working at an all-male barbecue event.
Facts
Ms Ndebele (N) was a temporary worker who was signed up to a catering agency. On 28 and 29 June 2016, she worked as a chef for A Bubble Company Limited (B), a catering company that provided food and drink at prestigious events.
On 29 June 2016, B’s Head of Sales, asked the Office Manager (whose job involved obtaining staff for events) to arrange for a chef to assist at a private barbecue that was being hosted by one of his friends. This was a completely private event, and was not being organised by B.
The Office Manager followed the Head of Sales’ instruction and went to the kitchen area to ask the chefs whether they wished to work at the barbecue. She explained that they would be remunerated in ‘cash in hand’ which made it clear that the barbecue was not an event being run by B.
N and four male chefs volunteered to work the barbecue. The Office Manager decided that N would be the most suitable person to work the event. However, on being told that N had been selected, the Head of Sales objected to her appointment on the basis that his friend’s barbecue was an all-male event, and a male chef would therefore be his preference.
Subsequently, the Office Manager went back to N and told her that she would no longer be required for the event. N asked the Office Manager to clarify that she was not needed because she was a woman and the Officer Manager confirmed this.
N brought two allegations of sex discrimination against B, namely the allegation that she was prevented from working the barbecue because of her sex, and a second allegation that her remaining shifts were cancelled shortly after the incident.
Tribunal decision
The Tribunal held that in respect of the first allegation, B had committed direct sex discrimination. The Tribunal found that B had breached section 41 of the Equality Act 2010: ‘A principal must not discriminate against a contract worker… in the way the principal affords the worker access, or by not affording the worker access, to opportunities for receiving a benefit, facility or service’.
B had sought to argue that this section only related to ‘benefits’ provided by B’s business and that they were simply the messenger in this case. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that there was nothing in the section to suggest that this was the case, and other examples such as giving a worker the opportunity to work or train with a third party could be ‘benefits’ under this section.
B also tried to argue that they were not vicariously liable for the discrimination. The Tribunal disagreed, finding that the Office Manager had carried out the act of discrimination in the course of her employment and that B had failed to present evidence to suggest that they had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the incident from occurring (for example by providing equality training to staff).
N’s second allegation failed, as there was no evidence to suggest that her shifts had been cancelled because of her sex.
Comment
This case clearly shows that organisations can be liable for the acts of their staff even where it appears that those discriminatory acts do not themselves relate to the business of that organisation.
It is a reminder that all staff should have proper equality training and be aware of what could constitute a discriminatory act.
If you have any queries on the above and how it will affect you, please do not hesitate to contact a member of our education team.
Please note that this briefing is designed to be informative, not advisory and represents our understanding of English law and practice as at the date indicated. We would always recommend that you should seek specific guidance on any particular legal issue.
This page may contain links that direct you to third party websites. We have no control over and are not responsible for the content, use by you or availability of those third party websites, for any products or services you buy through those sites or for the treatment of any personal information you provide to the third party.
