Challenging cuts to terms and conditions 


An employer’s demand that employees agree to cuts to terms and conditions or else face dismissal is a “provision, criterion or practice” which can lead to indirect discrimination where the impact of cuts falls disproportionately on a protected group. The employer must be able to justify any such cuts objectively to avoid breaking the law (Braithwaite v HCL Insurance BPO Services Limited [2015] UKEAT/0152/14). See also page 220.


Reps should make sure equality issues are embedded in any consultation on contract change. To avoid a claim, the employer should have persuasive evidence, for example, of:



• a real business need for the change, supported by relevant facts and figures; 




• genuine consultation;




• proper consideration of all reasonable alternatives proposed, explaining why suggestions are not feasible; and




• careful balancing of the negative impact on affected workers, as against gains to the business.




The Public Sector Equality Duty can be used to challenge threats to terms and conditions where the employer is a public sector employer or a private sector employer providing public services. An equality impact assessment (EIA) is the best way of assessing the likely impact of proposed changes on disadvantaged groups (see page 257). In Wales and Scotland, an EIA is compulsory.