Sex Discrimination - Direct

Unincorporated association – practice and procedure.  The Claimant was employed by the management committee of an unincorporated association.  By the time of the hearing the only Respondents were (1) the unincorporated association in its own name and (2) two individual members of the management committee alleged to bear responsibility  for racial and sexual harassment and discrimination.   It was argued that (1) it was impermissible to name the unincorporated association as such, (2) all the members of the committee had to be joined as respondents and (3) the two individuals were not properly on notice that they were joined as members of the committee rather than individual perpetrators.  Arguments rejected.  It remained good practice to join an individual member of the committee as a representative -   Affleck and others v Newcastle Mind and others (1999) IRLR 405 considered and applied.  In any event it was permissible, in employment tribunal procedure, for an employee to make a claim against the employing management committee of an unincorporated association using the name of the unincorporated association.  Observations on matters to be considered by a Tribunal when managing proceedings where an unincorporated association is a respondent.

Sexual and racial harassment and discrimination – burden of proof.  The Tribunal wrongly applied the burden of proof provisions within the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Discrimination Act 1976:  Madarassy v Nomura [2007] ICR 867 applied. Specific criticisms of individual findings were also upheld.