Language in the workplace


Setting rules about language, for example, the standard of language needed for a role, can be indirectly discriminatory against non-English speakers. The employer must be able to objectively justify any language requirement as necessary for the satisfactory performance of the role. For example, with a customer facing role, it is more likely to be objectively justifiable to insist on very good spoken English, as opposed to a production line job that needs only basic spoken English.


Under the Welsh Language Act 1993, there are special rules in place in Wales, where public bodies providing services to the public must make their services available in Welsh as well as in English. As a statutory exception to the EA 10, a wide range of public bodies can insist on job applicants able to speak, read and write Welsh to the standard required for the post. 


Sometimes, employers want to make rules requiring a common language to be spoken in the workplace, usually English. Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance recognises that there is “a clear business interest in having a common language in the workplace, to avoid misunderstandings, whether legal, financial or in relation to health and safety. It is also conducive to good working relations to avoid excluding workers from conversations that might concern them”. 


However, there is also a risk of bullying and harassment at work associated with language. In Dziedziak v Future Electronics Limited [2012] UKEAT/0270/11/ZT, the EAT ruled that an instruction by a manager to the claimant “not to speak in her own language” (Polish) was a detriment and race discrimination. However, these cases always depend on their own facts. For example, in Kelly v Covance Laboratories Limited [2015] UKEAT/0186/15/LA, the employer was justified in insisting that a Russian lab worker spoke only English at work because of genuine concerns that she could be an animal rights activist.


Imposing a language requirement outside working hours, for example, during social events or breaks or during casual conversations with colleagues, could well be discriminatory and would be hard to justify. “Blanket rules” may not be objectively justifiable, warns the EHRC. 


An employer imposing a language rule at work will need to show that they considered other less discriminatory ways of achieving their desired aim, such as language training for workers (for example, TUC Unionlearn Learning Centres offer courses in English). Some multi-lingual workers may be prepared to act as interpreters for others, for example, in grievance meetings. Multilingual signage, especially for health and safety purposes, and multi-lingual training on policies such as equality, bullying and harassment are also important.


Insisting on excellent spoken English may discriminate against some disabled workers, such as some deaf people. Employers owe a duty to make reasonable adjustments, which can include taking steps to make sure information is provided in accessible formats.