From understanding expenses to starting a limited company, our downloadable business guides can help you.
With the diversity of workforces in the UK today, there will inevitably be many workers of different nationalities and with different languages and cultures. This will mean that employers may need to deal with issues regarding what language is used in the workplace, particularly if many workers do not have English as their first language.
One of the most important aspects of any ‘language policy’ that an employer adopts is not to discriminate against any workers under the Equality Act 2010 (compensation for discrimination claims at an Employment Tribunal are ‘uncapped’ so have no limit). This includes race discrimination, defined as colour, nationality, ethnic and national origins.
‘Less favourable’ treatment because of race would be unlawful direct discrimination. Indirect discrimination is harder to recognise – it needs a ‘provision, criteria or practice’ in place in the workplace, which applies to all, but which puts people in a certain racial group at a particular disadvantage.
If an employer required all its employees to have excellent English language skills, they would need to justify their need for this, otherwise it may be indirect discrimination (only indirect, not direct, discrimination is possible to be justified).
If an employer could not justify this requirement, the treatment would be unlawful for those who are not native English speakers, as they are less likely to be able to comply with the requirement. For example, if excellent English language skills were needed to perform the job satisfactorily then this could be justification, for example for a customer-facing job. If the job is not customer-facing, perhaps in a factory, then only basic English language skills may be needed to perform the role satisfactorily and safely (to understand what is required in the job).
However, what about general communication between the workforce, does this have to be in English too?
If an employer required all communication in the workplace to be in English, they would need to justify this so it is not indirectly discriminatory. This could be justified where it would reduce misunderstandings in terms of legal, health and safety or financial issues or promote good employee relations. English-speaking employees who do not understand what their colleagues are talking about in another language may be upset and feel excluded.
Three recent employment law cases highlight the complicated issues involved here:
The conclusion – it will be difficult to justify imposing one particular language outside of work duties (on breaks or in casual conversations) or outside of working hours at social events.
In 2016 the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered the case of Kelly v Covance Laboratories Ltd, to see if the case of a Russian national who was told not to speak Russian at work was race discrimination. The facts of the case are interesting and complicated (so we won’t go into them here), but the EAT found that her she had not been discriminated against because it was not Ms Kelly’s race or national original that had made her line manager give her instructions not to speak Russian, but it was her behaviour, in the circumstances of her job, which was a reasonable ground for her manager’s concern that she was speaking Russian.
If an Employer needs to consider their language policy they should consider:
In May 2014 a Government advisor said that Recruitment Agencies should ensure that people recruited as Carers can speak English before placing them in vulnerable people’s homes; going on to suggest there should be a standard interview process to establish English language proficiency.
At the beginning of August 2015 the Government announced that public sector workers ‘must have fluent English’. From September, the Government said that people who do not speak fluent English will be barred from public sector jobs in England, Scotland and Wales which involve working directly with the public. The new rules form part of the Governments Immigration Bill and will require workers to have language skills equivalent to GCSE grade C or above. The Government will issue guidance in a code of practice on how each organisation will test their staff. Existing employees who are not fluent enough may be given time to improve.
If you are an Employer and need ongoing professional help with any staff/freelance issues then talk to Lesley at The HR Kiosk – a Human Resources Consultancy for small businesses – our fees are low to reflect the pressures on small businesses and you can hire us for as much time as you need.
Please note that the advice given on this website and by our advisors is guidance only and cannot be taken as an authoritative or current interpretation of the law. It can also not be seen as specific advice for individual cases. Please also note that there are differences in legislation in Northern Ireland.
Darren Fell, CEO of Crunch, said: "We welcome the government's commitment to adopt the recommendations from the Taylor report. We would however, urge caution that any response does not introduce more red tape, or reduce the ability for entrepreneurs to employ people flexibly."
How likely is it that your employer or client will be keeping an eye on you? In the eyes of the law, can your employer spy on you at work?
Don't have a fixed place of work and travel directly to clients? The ECJ decided in September 2015 that travel time counts as working time. We take a look.