Introduction

The case of Harrods Ltd v Remick ([1995] UKEAT 397_95_1112) is a pivotal judgment delivered by the United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) on December 11, 1995. This case addresses the circumstances under which a principal (Harrods Ltd) can be held liable for race discrimination committed by its concessionaire’s employees. The parties involved include Harrods Ltd as the appellant and Ms. M Remick, Mrs. A Seely, and Miss G Elmi as respondents, each alleging race discrimination in their respective employment or job application processes.

Summary of the Judgment

The EAT examined three separate appeals challenging decisions made by Industrial Tribunals regarding race discrimination claims under Section 7 of the Race Relations Act 1976. The central issue was whether Harrods Ltd could be held liable for discriminatory acts perpetrated by employees of its concessionaires, who were not directly employed by Harrods. The Tribunal upheld the claims of Ms. Remick and Mrs. Seely, recognizing Harrods as a principal liable under Section 7 for their discrimination. However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim of Miss Elmi, holding that Harrods was not liable in her case. The EAT ultimately dismissed Harrods' appeals in favor of Ms. Remick and Mrs. Seely, while allowing the appeal in Miss Elmi's case, highlighting the nuanced application of Section 7 depending on specific factual circumstances.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment primarily revolved around interpreting Section 7 of the Race Relations Act 1976. One key case referenced was Rice v. Fon-a-Car [1980] ICR 133, which dealt with employment liability and the definition of "employment" under the Act. The EAT analyzed how prior interpretations of "employment" and "principal" relationships would apply to the modern context of large retail operations involving concessionaires.

Legal Reasoning

The EAT's legal reasoning hinged on the interpretation of Section 7, which protects contract workers against discrimination by principals. The Act specifies that a principal can be liable if they have a contractual relationship with another party (the concessionaire) who supplies workers. The court examined whether the work performed by the concessionaire’s employees was "for" Harrods, not merely in Harrods' premises but for Harrods' commercial benefit.

In Ms. Remick and Mrs. Seely's cases, the Tribunal found that the concessionaires were under obligations that effectively made the work "for" Harrods, thereby extending liability under Section 7. Contrarily, in Miss Elmi's case, the Tribunal determined that the refusal of store approval by Harrods did not amount to discrimination under the Act, as there was no direct contractual obligation for Harrods to supply workers, nor an employer-employee relationship established with the individuals.

Impact

This judgment significantly impacts the liability of large retailers employing concessionaires. It clarifies that principals can be held accountable for discriminatory practices by their concessionaires' employees if the contractual arrangements imply that the work is performed for the principal's benefit. This extends the scope of the Race Relations Act 1976, ensuring greater protection for contract workers and holding major employers more accountable for the actions of their subcontracted personnel.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 7 of the Race Relations Act 1976

Section 7 extends protection against race discrimination to contract workers. It states that it is unlawful for a principal to discriminate against a contract worker in terms of the work allowed, access to benefits, or any other detriment. A principal is typically a company like Harrods that contracts another company (the concessionaire) to supply workers.

Principal and Contract Worker Relationship

The principal is the entity that engages another party (concessionaire) to supply workers. The contract worker is employed by the concessionaire but performs work that benefits the principal. Discrimination by the principal (Harrods) against these workers, even though they aren’t directly employed by the principal, can fall under Section 7.

Store Approval

Store approval refers to the requirement set by Harrods for concessionaire employees to comply with specific standards (e.g., dress code) to maintain their authorization to work within Harrods premises. Withdrawal of store approval can lead to termination of the contract worker’s role within Harrods, potentially raising discrimination concerns.

Conclusion

The Harrods Ltd v Remick judgment marks a significant precedent in employment discrimination law within the United Kingdom. By affirming that principals like Harrods can be held liable under Section 7 of the Race Relations Act 1976 for discriminatory practices by their concessionaire’s employees, the EAT has broadened the scope of employer responsibility. This ensures that contract workers receive comparable protections against discrimination, aligning with the Act’s objective to foster equality and prevent racial discrimination in all facets of employment. Future cases involving large retailers and their subcontracted workforce will reference this judgment to evaluate liability and enforce anti-discrimination protections effectively.