Language at work



Setting rules about language at work can be indirectly discriminatory. However, Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance recognises that there can be “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”. 



Nevertheless, there is a risk of bullying or harassment 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 direct race discrimination.


But these cases always depend on their own facts. For example, in Kelly v Covance Laboratories Limited [2015] UKEAT/0186/15/LA, the employer did not engage in discrimination by 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 who imposes a language rule at work needs to show that they considered other less discriminatory ways of achieving their desired aim, such as language training (for example, TUC Unionlearn Learning Centres offer courses in English). Some multilingual 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.



Setting rules about the standard of language needed for a role can also be indirectly discriminatory against non-English speakers. Again, 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.


In March 2017, the high court ruled, in a challenge brought by private hire firm Uber, that it was not indirect discrimination for Transport for London to require all private hire vehicle drivers in London to hold a Level B1 English Certificate, which tests “the ability to express oneself in a limited way in familiar situations and to deal in a general way with non-routine information.” The court ruled that the requirement was legitimate, proportionate and not discriminatory.


Insisting on excellent spoken English may discriminate against some disabled workers, such as some deaf people. Employers owe a duty to make reasonable adjustments, for example ensuring information is provided in accessible formats. 




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 that job applicants are able to speak, read and write Welsh to the standard required for the post.


New rules in the Immigration Act 2016 (IA16) came into force on 21 November 2016. Public authorities must now ensure that anyone who works for them in a “customer-facing” role (including as an agency worker, independent contractor or an apprentice) speaks “fluent English”. A role is “customer-facing” if a regular and intrinsic part of the role requires speaking to members of the public in English (or Welsh in Wales). “Fluent”, is defined as having a sufficient command of spoken English to effectively perform the role. There are no plans to require formal fluency testing. There is a statutory Code of Practice.


The TUC resisted this change, arguing that a more constructive way forward would be to support workplace English language classes. There are concerns that the new rules will increase harassment at work, including targeting workers because of their accents, or because they are hearing-impaired.