Resisting discriminatory changes to terms and conditions 


When an employer demands that employees agree to cuts to their terms and conditions or else face dismissal, this can lead to indirect discrimination where the impact of cuts falls disproportionately on a protected group. The employer must be able to justify the need for the changes objectively to avoid breaking the law (Braithwaite v HCL Insurance BPO Services Limited [2015] UKEAT/0152/14). Reps should make sure equality issues are embedded in any consultation on contract change. To avoid a claim, the employer should have genuine 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.


In the case of a public sector employer, or a private sector employer providing public services, reps can use the Public Sector Equality Duty. An equality impact assessment remains the best way of assessing the likely impact of any proposed changes on disadvantaged groups (see page 250).