Challenging cuts to terms and conditions 



A demand that employees accept cuts or other changes to terms and conditions or else face dismissal is a “provision, criterion or practice” for the purpose of protection from indirect discrimination. There will be indirect discrimination if the impact of cuts falls disproportionately on a protected group, unless the employer can justify its decisions as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (Braithwaite v HCL Insurance BPO Services Limited [2015] UKEAT/0152/14).



Reps should make sure equality issues are embedded in any consultation on proposals to change terms and conditions. Reps can highlight disproportionate impact on particular groups, for example, women with young children and challenge the employer to show what steps they are taking to lessen that impact. The employer can be challenged to produce persuasive evidence, for example, of:




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






• an impact assessment showing that they have considered the impact of the proposals on different groups of workers;


• an explanation as to why the changes are justified, given their negative impact;


• consultation on the proposals and their impact, and on proposals to lessen that impact; 


• proper consideration of all reasonable less discriminatory alternatives, explaining why particular suggestions are not feasible.


The Public Sector Equality Duty can be a useful tool when challenging threats to terms and conditions from 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 269). In Wales and Scotland, an EIA is compulsory.