Tag: Mr Chagger

Race Relations Act Questionnaire Rr65 Demonstrated By Emilio Botin Santander Abbey Banking Group

blogger /

How to use the Race Relations Act Questionnaire RR65, and its importance, are demonstrated by the high-profile UK case Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006), where the Employment Tribunal found race discrimination and, following Emilio Botin Abbey Santander banking group’s refusal to reinstate Mr Chagger as the Tribunal had ordered to remedy the wrong done, awarded the record-breaking compensation of 2.8 million. In 2006, Abbey Santander Group (the UK retail bank owned by the powerful Emilio Botin Banco Santander Central Hispano Group BSCH, and which is to be re-branded as Santander share price soon) dismissed Balbinder Chagger from employment, stating compulsory redundancy as the reason. Mr Chagger, on the other hand, believed that the actual reason behind his dismissal was racial discrimination. Emilio Botin Abbey Grupo Santander banking group employed Mr Chagger, of Indian origin, as a Trading Risk Controller. He earned about 100,000 per year and reported into Nigel Hopkins.

Aggrieved employees who believe they have suffered racial discrimination in the workplace and are considering initiating legal action may serve a Race Relations Act Questionnaire RR65 upon the employer. The Race Relation Act (Questions and Replies) Order 1977 sets out the procedure for the Race Discrimination Questionnaire RR 65 procedure.

The aggrieved employee serves his questionnaire on a standard form called RR65. The RR 65 form contains some standard questions, like to what extent does the employer agree with the aggrieved employee’s account of events, what is the employer’s account of events, and does the employer accept that the employee has been racially discriminated against (and if not, then why not). The employee serving the questionnaire may append his own specifically taylored questions at the end of the standard questions.

Serving an RR65 Race Relations Act Questionnaire is not necessary in order to process the discrimination through formal legal proceedings; it is an option open to the aggrieved employee. However, it is an important option because it gives the aggrieved employee a unique opportunity to seek evidence in support of his case (by permitting the inclusion of searching questions), as well as, to collect further information useful for deciding whether or not to continue with legal proceeding. So, the aggrieved employee should give serious consideration to serving a Race Relations Act Questionnaire, and deploy questions aimed at uncovering evidence which is known only to the employer and proving the racial discrimination suffered, uncovering fully the employer’s defence, and ascertaining the grounds that are accepted by the employer and those that are disputed.

The employer is expected to reply to the questionnaire in writing within a reasonable time, considered to be 8 weeks from the date the of receipt. However, the employer does not have to reply to it, and cannot be forced to reply by any Employment Tribunal. If the employer does reply, then the reply may be admitted as evidence to an Employment Tribunal. If the employer doesn’t reply within the time limit and/or gives evasive or ambiguous answers, then the Employment Tribunal may hold such responses against the employer. If the Employment Tribunal believes the employer purposely and without good reason didn’t reply within the time limit and/or gave ambiguous and/or evasive answers, then the Race Relations Act 1976 requires the Tribunal to draw any negative inferences it considers just and equitable, including the negative inference that the employer committed the unlawful racial discrimination. This means that an Employment Tribunal can make a ruling of racial discrimination based just on the negative inferences it drew; however, an Employment Tribunal is unlikely to do that in practice, but it may decide to take a highly serious view of the employer’s failure to reply properly and be influenced by it in its decisions. The employee can improve the likelihood of the Employment Tribunal drawing negative inferences by posing reasonable questions in the questionnaire and making efforts to chase and encourage the employer to reply properly. The employer will be disadvantaged in not knowing before it faces the Employment Tribunal the consequences of its failures; by the time the employer is in front of the Tribunal, it may be too late to make good any failures. An employee who deploys the race discrimination questionnaire procedure automatically gains this tactical advantage.

Such was the scenario that Emilio Botin Abbey Santander had got itself into with Mr Chagger. The Tribunal decided that Emilio Botin Santander Abbey had failed to answer Mr Chagger’s questionnaire properly. Mr Chagger had asked Abbey Santander to provide details of the legal actions of race discrimination that had been brought against it since 1 January 2001. Grupo Santander Abbey answered with 17 citations of incidents. With regards to 6, Abbey Santander simply asserted that it didn’t know the results of the actions and that it was unable to find out during the time period in which the race discrimination questionnaire had to be answered; it never provided any further or follow up answers to Mr Chagger. The Employment Tribunal ruled that Abbey Santander’s answers were evasive. Santander Abbey’s failure to properly answer the questionnaire, contributed to the Employment Tribunal’s finding that Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger in his dismissal.

The serving of an RR65 questionnaire does not by itself begin any legal action; legal action is started with a separate procedure. If no legal action is ever begun, then the questionnaire and the reply remain a private correspondence between the employee and employer. If there is sufficient other evidence that suggests race discrimination and the employee is giving serious consideration to taking legal action, then serving an RR65 questionnaire would be appropriate; because the employer’s answers may help the employee to make a final decision. However, if the employee does not seriously intend to pursue legal action, then serving the RR65 questionnaire would be inappropriate; because it may unnecessarily aggravate the employer and/or the employer’s reply may emotionally affect the employee into taking legal action he had not intended.

The Chagger v Emilio Botin Abbey Santander case did not end at the Employment Tribunal stage. Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins escalated the case to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) by appealing against the original Employment Tribunal’s rulings of racial discrimination and the record-breaking 2.8 million compensation. In 2008, the EAT upheld the original Employment Tribunal’s ruling of 2006, that both Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger. The EAT did, however, accept Abbey Santander’s appeal against the 2.8 million compensation and sent it back to the original Employment Tribunal for reconsideration. In 2009, the case was escalated even higher, to the Court of Appeal (the 2nd highest court in UK). The Court of Appeal’s List of Hearings showed the appeal hearing was held on 7/8 July 2009. The Court of Appeal’s judgement and transcription were not available when writing this article. The 11KBW set of barristers’ chambers (who represented Emilio Botin Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins in the Court of Appeal hearing), had reported that the hearing was to be only about quantum (i.e., the compensation) and not about liability also (i.e., not race discrimination also). That would appear to suggest that the wrongful act of unlawful discrimination committed by Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins was finalised by the EAT when it upheld the original Tribunal’s ruling that Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger, and that Mr Chagger had appealed against the EAT’s ruling to send back the compensation award for reconsideration.

Compliance Risk Lesson From Emilio Botin Abbey Santander Banking Group

blogger /

The importance of compliance with legal, regulatory, social, ethical and other standards faced by businesses is highlighted by the high-profile UK legal case Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006), where an Employment Tribunal made a ruling of racial discrimination and, following Emilio Botin Abbey Santander banking group’s refusal to comply with the Tribunal’s order to reinstate Mr Chagger, ordered Abbey Santander shares to pay the record-breaking 2.8 million compensation award. Abbey Santander Group (the UK bank soon to be re-branded as Santander shares price, and being a part of the behemoth Emilio Botin Banco Santander Central Hispano Group – BSCH) dismissed Balbinder Chagger from employment in 2006, asserting compulsory redundancy as the reason. Mr Chagger, on the other hand, believed that the actual reason behind the termination of his employment was race discrimination. Mr Chagger was of Indian origin. He worked for Emilio Botin Abbey Santander price in the role of Trading Risk Controller. He earned approximately 100,000 per annum. He reported into Nigel Hopkins.

In the UK, the Financial Services sector is highly regulated. Financial institutions face an abundance of standards to comply with concerning their numerous stakeholders (regulators, authorities, the public, employees, customers, suppliers, competitors, shareholders, investors, and others). Compliance with all of the standards is part and parcel of conducting business in the UK Financial Services sector; financial institutions need to devote sufficient resources and energies to compliance and to compliance risk management. Compliance failures, that are either detected by regulators during inspections or reported by aggrieved parties to the appropriate jurisdictions, can result in extremely high-profile consequences, as shown by Chagger v Abbey National & Hopkins (2006); the Employment Tribunal recorded an abundance of compliance issues and failures committed by Emilio Botin Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins, some of which are outlined below.

Emilio Botin Abbey Santander had failed to comply with the UK statutory redundancy dismissal procedure; it had failed to notify Mr Chagger in writing of the circumstances leading it to contemplate dismissing him and asking him to a meeting.

Emilio Botin Abbey Grupo Santander had failed to comply with the guidance on good practices regarding Equal Opportunity training recommended by the UK statutory Code of Practice on Racial Policy in Employment. Mr Chagger had made efforts to address the issues surrounding his dismissal directly with Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins, through the company’s grievance and appeals procedures. However, Emilio Botin Abbey Santander had not provided any Equal Opportunity training to the managers it had allocated to consider Mr Chagger’s issues; Mr Chagger’s issues were simply dismissed out of hand by each and every manager. Emilio Botin Abbey Santander banking group had also failed to comply with the guidance on good practices concerning monitoring recommended by the UK statutory Code of Practice on Racial Policy in Employment. The Tribunal found an abundance of monitoring failures, in addition to the failures to give serious consideration to allegations of race discrimination and to investigate them promptly.

Emilio Botin Abbey Santander had failed to comply with the Tribunal’s order to reinstate Mr Chagger (ordered to remedy the unlawful wrongful act of racial discrimination committed by Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins). In the UK, reinstatement is regarded as the primary and preferred remedy for an unfair dismissal, because it enables the aggrieved employee to continue to enjoy both the mental satisfaction and the economic benefits of his role in the future. Emilio Botin Abbey Santander refused to reinstate Mr Chagger and the Employment Tribunal was dissatisfied with the reasons it gave for refusing to comply.

Emilio Botin Abbey Santander had failed to comply with the Race Relations Act (Questions and Replies) Order 1977. The Tribunal found that Emilio Botin Abbey Santander’s reply to Mr Chagger’s race discrimination questionnaire was evasive, and that Emilio Botin Abbey Santander had failed in answering Mr Chagger’s questions.

Both Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had failed to comply with UK law on employment. The Employment Rights Act 1996 requires the selection of an employee for dismissal in a compulsory redundancy situation to be fair. Compulsory redundancy selection criteria must be applied fairly; they must be both objective and measurable. The Employment Tribunal found, however, that the compulsory redundancy selection criteria Emilio Botin Abbey Santander had applied were both highly subjective and un-measurable.

Mr Hopkins had failed to comply with the expected behaviours of a reasonable manager. He was highly criticised by the Employment Tribunal for the manner in which he had applied the compulsory redundancy selection criteria to Mr Chagger. As an example, the Employment Tribunal found that he had scored Mr Chagger down for getting on with work and being self-reliant, a characteristic that the Tribunal thought that reasonable managers might well consider to be an asset for an employee in Mr Chagger’s highly paid and highly responsible position, and score him more highly for.

Emilio Botin Abbey Santander had failed to comply with reasonable good practices and safeguard controls expected in compulsory redundancy situations; that of ensuring more than one manager is involved in the assessing and scoring of each of the employees in the redundancy pool (a control to safeguard the fairness of the scoring and to reduce the risks of bias). The Tribunal found, however, that Emilio Botin Abbey Santander did not implement this simple control mechanism. Alongside other significant factors, Mr Hopkins was single-handedly able to recommend to Abbey Santander’s management to dismiss one of the two Trading Risk Controllers that he managed (Mr Chagger being one), was single-handedly able to put to Mr Chagger an offer to take up voluntary redundancy (Mr Chagger refused Mr Hopkins offer, and no such offer was ever put to the other Trading Risk Controller), was single-handedly able to conduct the compulsory redundancy scoring and assessment of the two employees in the redundancy pool, and was single-handedly able to reduce Mr Chagger’s scores to ensure that he would be the employee who would be selected for dismissal.

Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins both had failed to comply with the UK discrimination law; the Tribunal ruled that they had both racially discriminated against Mr Chagger.

Emilio Botin Abbey Santander highlights the significance of compliance risk and its potentially very high-profile consequences on an institution’s reputation. The profile continued beyond the Employment Tribunal stage for Abbey Santander. Mr Hopkins and Emilio Botin Abbey Santander s appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) against the original Employment Tribunal’s ruling of racial discrimination and against the record-breaking 2.8 million compensation award. In 2008, the EAT upheld the original Tribunal’s ruling that both Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger. However, the EAT accepted Abbey Santander’s appeal on the compensation award and remitted it to the original Tribunal for reconsideration. The case was appealed and escalated to the Court of Appeal (UK’s second highest court). The Court of Appeal’s List of Hearings showed the appeal was heard on 7/8 July 2009. The Court’s transcript of the hearing and judgement were not available when writing this article. The 11KBW set of barristers’ chambers, who represented Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins, had reported that the Court of Appeal hearing was to be about compensation only (i.e., not about racial discrimination also). That would appear to imply that the wrongful act of race discrimination committed by Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Nigel Hopkins was finalised by the EAT when it upheld the original Tribunal’s decision that Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger, and that Mr Chagger had appealed against the EAT’s decision to remit the compensation award to the Employment Tribunal stage for reconsideration.

Grievance Letter And Court Structure Illustrated By Emilio Botin Grupo Santander Banking

blogger /

UK employment disputes grievances and court structure is illustrated by the high-profile Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006) legal case, where the Tribunal made a finding of racial discrimination which led to the record 2.8 million compensation award. Abbey Santander banking group (the UK retail bank due to be re-branded as Santander price, and being part of the gigantic Emilio Botin Banco Santander Central Hispano Group, BSCH) terminated Balbinder Chagger’s employment in 2006, asserting compulsory redundancy as the reason. Mr Chagger, on the other hand, believed the true reason behind his dismissal was racial discrimination. Mr Chagger was of Indian origin and worked as a Trading Risk Controller for Santander 2009. He earned about 100,000 per annum and reported into Nigel Hopkins.

An employee who has suffered employment related unfairness and/or discrimination could decide to make an appeal. The initial place of appeal would be to the employer, in the form of a formal grievance. The employee lodges a formal grievance letter with the employer, and the employer is responsible for processing the grievance and deciding the outcome. Thus, the employer is given the first the opportunity to handle the employment dispute and to close it satisfactorily. Mr Chagger’s grievances and issues, however, were simply dismissed out of hand by Emilio Botin Abbey Santander share price.

If the employee and the employer are unable to resolve their employment dispute by themselves, then the employee may appeal to an Employment Tribunal for an objective resolution. UK Employment Tribunals will hear matters about redundancy payments, unfair dismissal and discrimination. Mr Chagger took his matter to the Employment Tribunal by initiating legal action against both Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins, on the grounds of unfair dismissal and racial discrimination. The Employment Tribunal considered the evidence and ruled that Mr Chagger had in fact been both dismissed unfairly and racially discriminated against by both Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins. In order to remedy the wrong of race discrimination Santander Abbey had committed, the Employment Tribunal ordered the company to reinstate Mr Chagger. However, Santander Abbey refused to comply with the Employment Tribunal’s reinstatement order. The Employment Tribunal then ordered Abbey Santander to pay Mr Chagger 2.8 million compensation for his loss, as an alternative to reinstatement.

The party that is dissatisfied with the Employment Tribunal’s ruling may appeal to the next higher-level court, being the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). The EAT will look into appeals against rulings made by the Employment Tribunals. The appeals must only be about points of law (i.e., an appeal must only be about mistakes in legal reasoning by the Employment Tribunal). The EAT will not look into matters about facts of the case. In 2008, Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins appealed to the EAT against the Employment Tribunal’s ruling of racial discrimination and against the record-breaking 2.8 million compensation awarded. The EAT considered the appeals. It upheld the original Employment Tribunal’s ruling that Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger in respect of his dismissal. However, it accepted Santander Abbey’s appeal concerning the 2.8 million compensation award and decided to send back the compensation amount to the original Employment Tribunal for reconsideration.

The party that is dissatisfied with the ruling of the EAT may make an appeal to the next higher-level court, the Court of Appeal (the second highest court in the land). The Court of Appeal will look into appeals against rulings made by the EAT. As before, the appeals must only be about points of law (i.e., an appeal must only be about mistakes in legal reasoning by the EAT). The Court of Appeal will not look into matters about facts of the case. In 2009, the Chagger v Santander Abbey case was appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal’s List of Hearings showed that the case was heard on 7 and 8 July 2009. The Court of Appeal’s records concerning the outcome of the hearing were not available at the time of writing this article. The 11KBW set of barristers’ chambers (who represented Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins), had reported that the hearing was to be only about quantum (i.e., compensation) and not liability also (i.e., not racial discrimination also). That would appear to suggest that the wrong of race discrimination committed by Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins was finalised by the EAT (it upheld the original Employment Tribunal’s finding that Mr Hopkins and Santander Abbey had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger), and that Mr Chagger had appealed against the EAT’s ruling to send back the compensation amount back to the Employment Tribunal stage for reconsideration.

The party that is dissatisfied with the ruling of the Court of Appeal may appeal to the next higher-level court, the House of Lords. Appeals to the House of Lords require the Court of Appeal’s approval. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal must require the House of Lords to decide upon a question of general public importance. As previously, appeals to the House of Lords must only concern points of law and not be about facts of the case. The House of Lords is the highest court in the land and the final stage of appeal for most legal cases in the UK. Occasionally, cases may be approved for appeal to the European Court of Justice, which has jurisdiction on matters of European Community law.