In order to help you negotiate your way around Bribery Act, we have produced a small series of infographics detailing adequate procedures for protecting your organisation against bribery and corruption, as recommended by Transparency International and the Ministry of Justice.
Bribery Act Adequate Procedures Infographic
The second in the series relates to Corporate Hospitality guidance.
The weighty topic of discrimination is by no means a new inclusion in sociological discussion, yet there still seems to be a disparity between progress in anti-discriminatory legislation and the reported experiences amongst some communities that the sores of prejudice continue to smart.
I wonder how many of us would admit to feeling that they are, or have been, a victim of discrimination. Or what percentage would concede that certain learnt behaviours or cultural influences may have played a part in them discriminating against another; no matter how innocuous or unintentional it felt at the time. From excluding a person point-blank because of their creed or sexual orientation, to favouring an interview candidate due to their age in order to create the optimum ‘fit’ within a work group, prejudice and intolerance can be as far reaching as they are destructive. Discrimination is not simply cancelled out by advances in legislation but by maintaining staunch opposition, community cohesion and fostering progressive attitudes.
High profile cases such as the victory of former Countryfile presenter Miriam O’Reilly (51) over the BBC citing age discrimination keep the struggles fresh in our minds. Charges of both age and gender discrimination were brought against the broadcaster, though the latter plea was unsuccessful. O’ Reilly was awarded £150,000 in damages. The judge implicated BBC bosses as “complacent” in their attitudes towards staff and it’s that very adjective that responsible employers need to ward against in order to maintain a workplace untainted by prejudice.
A year after the 2006 age discrimination law was passed, a survey by the Employees Forum on Age found that 59% of respondents claimed they had witnessed ageist behaviour in the workplace during the previous 12 months. 86% of those interviewed confirmed that they were aware of the change in the law and that this behaviour was now illegal. The ONS (Office of National Statistics) reported a record high of 900,000 in the number of over-65s remaining in work, an increase of 56,000 from the last quarter. By passing a law governments are requesting a commitment by businesses and civilians alike to practice non-discriminatory behaviour, but the attendant histrionics can be trickier to moderate.
The Government is calling on the UK’s largest companies to ensure that 25% of their directors are female by 2015 in response to the knowledge that 18 of the FTSE 500 have no female board members and only 16 blue chip companies have a female director. Some suspect that reasons for this disparity are due to fears that female colleagues would not be able to commit sufficient time to long term high-level positions, presumably due to family commitments. This assumption does not allow for women who decide not to have a family or who take a small amount of time off work when they do.
The UN International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is observed annually on the 21st March. The Day remembers the 69 people killed by police in peaceful anti-apartheid protests in South Africa. The Apartheid is, of course, no longer in place and race-related laws, in most countries, are a thing of the past.
Unfortunately racism still occurs all over the world, albeit to a lesser extent than previous generations. The 1976 Race Relations Act saw the UK move to protect people who are discriminated against because of their colour, nationality or heritage, whether intentional or not. In a nation as culturally diverse as the UK, issues of integration and cohesion are complex and often contentious. Last year Scotland Yard was forced to concede to allegations of discrimination as part of a deal to end a boycott from the Black Police Association. This was clearly not in the PR interests of such a prominent public sector department. The row was sparked by the claims of Tarique Gaffur, third in charge at the Met, who branded boss Ian Blair a racist and moved to sue the force for discrimination. The BPA discouraged people from ethnic minorities from joining the force due to its disproportionate disciplinary procedures and alleged bias against people from ethnic minorities regarding job advancement. The row continued for 16 months and resulted in a vow by Deputy Commissioner, Tim Godwin, to fully address racism and discrimination across the Met.
DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) and DED (Disability Equality Duty) training is increasingly offered by employers, keen to optimise their equal opportunity strategy and hotlines are widely recommended and successfully used as a confidential reporting mechanism for incidents or concerns. Effectively quashing all discrimination means establishing a culture of no tolerance in the work place and across society as a whole.
The majority of citizens practice non-discriminatory behaviour and it is unpleasant to suspect that colleagues may be degrading the strict ethical and moral codes advocated within an organisation. But prevention is the best form of cure and maintaining good corporate governance in the form of external and internal reporting systems means incidents can be managed swiftly and comprehensively. Employers are liable for employees who act in a discriminatory fashion when it is acting in the course of their employment. Employers can make a case of being exempt from this vicarious liability if they can show they implemented all reasonable steps to prevent such an incident taking place.
Discrimination is partly defined by the ability to distinguish fine differences in objects and within that very definition there is a great deal of scope for misinterpretation of rules, responses etc. Clearly the situations outlined above are only the tip of the iceberg; people become victims of discrimination for a myriad of reasons. By ensuring your business’ ethical credentials and that a framework of discrimination deterrents are in place you are safeguarding against costly legislative proceedings and ensuring you maintain a safe and happy workplace for your valued employees.
Click here for more information on Expolink’s confidential whistleblowing hotline.
To receive our quarterly newsletter, with industry updates relevant to you, please fill in the Get In Touch form below.
Below are three links to a radio interview given to BBC Radio Wiltshire on 23rd November 2010 where David Crook, CEO and founder of Expolink Europe, discusses the whistleblowing hotline service and the culture of corporate governance.
Radio interview with David Crook, CEO and founder of Expolink Europe. Part I
The first ever conviction of a company for corporate manslaughter emphasises the fact that organisations should collaborate with their HR departments in their approach to accidents and health and safety at work. Company HR departments will have a critical role to play in preventing future liability. Whistleblowing claims may follow a corporate manslaughter incident if employees suspect continued malpractice. Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings is the first company to be charged with gross negligence under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act of 2007.
The company failed to adhere to stringent health and safety guidelines, which amounted to a gross breach of duty of care owed to the deceased and as a result have been fined £385,000 to be paid over the next 10 years. The accident occurred in September 2008, while geologist Alex Wright was taking soil samples from a deep, unsupported trial pit.
Since 1965 companies have been subject to manslaughter proceedings and there have been many high profile cases where corporations have been brought to trial prior to the Royal Assent of the Act. One of the most memorable was the Clapham Rail disaster that claimed the lives of 35 passengers in 1988 when three trains collided. The British Rail Board acknowledged liability for the accident which was caused due to careless work carried out by signal workers. As the board was responsible under the regulation of vicarious liability, it paid compensation extending to £1 million in some cases, but no one was prosecuted for manslaughter.
The Act came into effect in April 2008 and only applies to deaths that occurred after that date. Fatalities that happened before 6 April 2008 will continue to be covered by the previous law on corporate manslaughter. The Act specifies a new offence for convicting organisations where a gross deficiency in the way activities are organised or regulated, results in a person’s death. Before the law came into effect, employers had an opportunity to thoroughly consider how they manage risks. The offence is not part of health and safety law and does not require organisations to comply with the new regulatory standards. However they must ensure they are taking the appropriate action to meet current legal duties.
Health and safety legislation under the Act includes workplace safety as invoked by local authorities and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Corporate manslaughter cases are prosecuted by the HSE, and in court jury panels are required to consider violations of health and safety legislation in ascertaining liability of companies for corporate manslaughter. Company health and safety practices, systems and policies will be closely scrutinised to determine how serious breaches in conduct have been. In the case of Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings its conduct fell well below what was expected and it was found guilty.
Employers have a responsibility for the health and safety of their employees. If after an employee has approached their direct/line manager, safety or trade union representative about a risk to their health or the health of others and are not satisfied that it has been adequately dealt with, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 is there to specifically protect them if they decide to blow the whistle about wrongdoing. The Act applies where an employee has justifiable knowledge that their disclosure demonstrates one or more of the following breaches:
Most corrupt, illegal and immoral practices go undetected within an organisation, because employees, aware these things are going on, fear the consequences of reporting them through existing internal channels. International outsourced whistleblowing hotlines are one of the most successful tools for encouraging employees to report fraud, theft, compliance and ethical issues and other misconduct; helping businesses meet their corporate governance responsibilities. Addressing such issues before they impact the reputation and operations of your business is paramount in the overall success of your organisation.
During 2010, Expolink compiled its own statistics on incidents regarding organisational process problems, duty of care and health and safety issues. These reported incidents amounted to 24% of all calls the hotline received during a one year period. While a whistleblowing hotline encourages employees to report such occurrences, companies and employers need to put preventative measures in place and address issues to decrease these statistics.
Contact us to find you more about how Expolink can help give employees the peace of mind they need to speak out about malpractice in the workplace.
View our update on the Corporate Manslaughter Act (March 2012).
