MEMORANDUM FROM THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES
COMMISSION (OCTOBER 2000)
(i) The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC)
is pleased to submit written evidence to the Defence Committee
Inquiry into personnel issues.
(ii) The EOC recognises the difficult job
that is undertaken by Britain's Armed Services with a high degree
of professionalism and commitment, but is concerned about a number
of significant gender inequality issues which have a negative
impact on the employment opportunities for women. These problems
remain despite joint working between the EOC, the MoD and the
three Armed Services. Our concerns relate to:
— Recruitment & Selection—the
need to end the ban on combat exclusion and attract more women,
and
— Retention—the need to change
the culture of the Armed Services so that more women can enjoy
a career in the Armed Services.
(iii) The EOC recognises the tremendous
developments that have occurred in recent years in opening up
a wider range of jobs to women in the Army, the RAF and service
at sea in the Royal Navy. Yet women remain excluded from a significant
proportion of posts whilst the Armed Services continue to report
problems of understaffing. Earlier this year the Army reported
a shortage of 6,500 trained troops—1,600 short in the infantry.
Opening up the posts from which women are currently excluded—some
30% of all posts—would increase the available talent in
the Services.
(iv) We believe immediate attention should
be given to:
— the continuing exclusion of women
from 30% of posts in the Army and corresponding posts in the Royal
Navy and RAF on the grounds that they could negatively affect
the combat effectiveness of the unit. The EOC wants to see women
having access to all jobs in the Armed Services on the basis of
their ability in the same way as men;
— extending the gender-free recruitment
and selection fitness tests across all the Services;
— the lack of special measures being
taken to address the issue of wider career choice for women in
the Services generally;
— the culture of the Services, which
acts to dissuade serving women from making complaints of harassment
for fear of displaying weakness, demoralising the team structure
or damaging her own or another's career;
— the complaint procedure, which suffers
excessive time delays and fails to provide a swift and effective
redress for complainants;
— developing focus groups in the Royal
Navy and Royal Air Force in order to evaluate the implementation
of equal opportunities;
— the provision of clear guidance for
managers on how to undertake suitable and sufficient assessments
of the risks to the health and safety of a new or expectant mother
and her baby whilst at work;
— the culture of the Armed Services
in order to support diversity;
— the reasons for excluding women from
submarines. The Royal Navy currently argue that all women should
be excluded on the basis that some of them could get pregnant,
which could constitute unlawful discrimination against some individual
women, but may be able to argue that its policy of excluding women
is lawful under the Equal Treatment Directive and s7(2)(c) of
the genuine occupational qualifications of the SDA with respect
to the circumstances in which the work is performed.
SUMMARY OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The EOC believed, and continues to believe
that the combat effectiveness exclusion under section 85 of the
SDA is too broad and that the wording is unspecific and have called
for its repeal. The EOC wants to see women having access to all
jobs in the Armed Services on the basis of their ability. (paragraph
3.1)
2. The work to extend the gender free recruitment
and selection fitness tests needs to be completed within and across
all the Services. (paragraph 5.2.3)
3. The Armed Services have allocated significant
resources in recent years to positive action initiatives aimed
at increasing recruitment from people from ethnic minority communities,
but similar initiatives aimed at women recruits have not been
undertaken with the same imperative. Although the Army officer
training centre at Sandhurst utilises the positive action provisions
of the legislation to provide single sex training courses for
women officers, the EOC recommends that the Armed Services take
special measures to widen the career choices for women in the
Services. (paragraph 5.3.2)
4. Women complainants to the EOC routinely
report that they were not informed about the complaint procedure
and/or were dissuaded from using it. Those who do use the procedure
complain about the excessive time delays in addressing their complaint.
The EOC would like to see the complaints procedure overhauled
so that it provides swift and effective redress for complainants.
(paragraph 6.2.4)
5. The Army has now established focus groups
that assess the level of harassment and the extent to which equality
is reaching individuals in the Service. This is a good example
of a means of developing an understanding of equality from the
grassroots without drawing unwanted attention to particular women
and the EOC recommends that similar groups be used by the other
Services to evaluate their equality policies and procedures. (paragraph
6.2.5)
6. Although the MoD report that compassionate
reasons are taken into account before any posting, it is clear
that managers need clear guidance on how to undertake suitable
and sufficient assessments of the risks to the health and safety
of a new or expectant mother and her baby whilst at work. (paragraph
6.3.4)
7. It is important that the culture within
the Armed Services continues to change to support and welcome
diversity, recognising that at particular periods in life, people
have different needs and expectations. (paragraph 6.3.7)
8. The Equal Treatment Directive and SDA
draw a distinction between the nature of work performed, and the
circumstances where that work is performed. The nature of the
work on board a submarine is such that there are no jobs that
women cannot do. But the living conditions on board are cramped
and totally lacking in personal privacy and are such that the
Royal Navy may be able to argue that its policy of excluding women
is lawful under the Equal Treatment Directive and s7(2)(c) of
the genuine occupational qualification of the SDA. (paragraph
6.6)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. The Equal Opportunities Commission
(the EOC) was set up by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (the SDA).
Its duties are to work towards the elimination of discrimination
between men and women, to promote equality of opportunity between
men and women generally and to keep under review the workings
of the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts. As the expert body
on sex equality, the EOC has confined its response to the Committee
to those matters that relate to the objectives and aims of the
EOC. However, where gender equality is an issue, quite often it
is possible to take into account other equality categories such
as race and where practicable we urge the Committee to consider
these also.
1.2. The EOC has used its powers to advance
the employment opportunities for women in the Armed Services over
the last nine years. In this submission to the Defence Select
Committee Inquiry we set out a brief recent history between the
EOC and the Armed Services; recognise the tremendous cultural
shift that has taken place; look at the challenges for the future
towards the goal of recruiting and retaining more women into the
Services and explain the EOC's vision of three Services where
women and men can serve to the best of their ability in order
to enhance the operational effectiveness of Britain's Armed Services.
2. HISTORY
2.1. In the early 1970s, before the SDA
was enacted, there was widespread acceptance in British society
that the Armed Services should be excluded from the legislation.
When the SDA was enacted it contained an exclusion under s85 that
covered the Armed Forces. Over the next 20 years the conventional
acceptance of this exclusion began to change as the nation's perception
of women's work changed, so that the Armed Services looked increasingly
isolated in the modern world that had women high achievers in
all major walks of life. But the world was not just changing externally,
internally as well, women in the Armed Services were demanding
equal opportunities so that they could enjoy a career and a family.
2.2. Two such women (Mrs Leale and Mrs Lane)
approached the EOC in 1991 because of the Services' decision to
dismiss them when they became pregnant and the EOC used its enforcement
powers to seek a Judicial Review on their behalf. This was the
usual practice in all three Services as it had been the practice
throughout industry before 1975. As a consequence of the practice
of employing only childless women in a restricted range of occupations,
the culture of the Armed Services had remained stuck in the early
70s, as the rest of the country had moved on and started to develop
arrangements to cope with such important equality concepts as
sexual harassment, equal pay, work-life balance and managing diversity.
The Armed Services were therefore at a disadvantage when seeking
to recruit skilled women in a modern employment context.
2.3. During the Judicial Review hearing
before the High Court the MoD conceded that whilst the exclusion
of the Armed Forces under s85 of the SDA was not unlawful under
domestic law, it breached European law. They undertook to abolish
the policy of discharging pregnant women and to compensate all
women who had been discharged from the Armed Services on grounds
of pregnancy since 1978, the date the European Equal Treatment
Directive had come into effect. In the following years, we understand
that the MoD paid some £60 million compensation to 5,500
women. This change of policy marked a watershed for women, permitting
them, for the first time, to contemplate a full life in the Armed
Services.
2.4. The EOC has since worked closely with
the MoD and Tri-Service Equal Opportunity Officers to develop
and implement sound equal opportunity arrangements in all policies
and practices adopted by the Armed Services. We attend regular
meetings to discuss concerns and good practice. The MoD and the
three Services are active members of the EOC's Equality Exchange,
a network for equal opportunity employers. In addition the EOC
has supported a total of 25 individual complainants since 1994
on a wide range of issues in order to clarify the law and seek
redress for individuals.[1]
2.5. Section 85 of the SDA was amended in
1995 to bring the Armed Services under the requirements of the
SDA, but still contained an exclusion for acts done "for
the purposes of ensuring the combat effectiveness of the Armed
Services". This exclusion has subsequently been used to continue
to deny women access to a number of jobs in front line occupations.
3. EOC CONCERNS
ABOUT THE
"COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS"
EXCLUSION
3.1 The EOC believed, and continues to believe
that the "combat effectiveness" exclusion is too broad,
and that the wording is unspecific and have called for its repeal.
The Commission wants to see women having access to all jobs in
the Armed Services on the basis of their ability.
3.2 In 1995, prior to the adoption of the
new exclusion, the EOC warned that further litigation was almost
inevitable as women sought to clarify their rights and indeed,
shortly afterwards a woman (Mrs Sirdar) lodged a claim of sex
discrimination in respect of a decision to make her redundant
rather than transfer her to become a chef in the Royal Marines,
where women are not permitted to serve. In March 1997 the Tribunal
found that all General Service Royal Marines are interoperable:
regardless of specialisation they are liable to fight as commando
infanteers.
3.3 The Tribunal referred questions to the
European Court of Justice (the ECJ) to determine to what extent
UK courts are able to consider a challenge against the exclusion
of women from combat posts. In October 1999 the European Court
held that decisions about the employment of women in the Armed
Forces, taken for reasons of combat effectiveness, do not fall
altogether outside the Equal Treatment Directive. The test to
be applied where such a policy or decision is challenged is that
the policy is necessary and appropriate to the objective, and
that national authorities have a margin of discretion to decide
what is necessary and appropriate. Mrs Sirdar withdrew the tribunal
proceedings in July 2000, on a basis satisfactory to both parties
without admission of liability by the MoD.
3.4 The MoD has stated that it is committed
to equal opportunities so far as is consistent with the operational
combat effectiveness of the Armed Forces. It believes that units
whose primary purpose is to close with and kill the enemy should
recruit only men. However, the MoD is committed to keep all policies
which limit the opportunities open to women under review. The
Army is currently conducting a study at the behest of the Secretary
of State for Defence to assess what would be the impact on the
operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces of opening all posts
to women. This study will report to Ministers in 2001. The EOC
has reservations about the potential conclusions that can be drawn
from the tests in that it is not possible to replicate actual
combat conditions. Nevertheless we await the results of the study
and any subsequent changes to policy with interest. The EOC remains
convinced that if the ban on women in combat is not lifted there
is a limit to women's progression within the Armed Services since
they will not have the opportunity to gain experience of the full
range of duties.
3.5 Earlier this year, the EOC commissioned
research on gender integration in the military from Dr David Segal,
Professor of Sociology and Director of the Center for Research
on Military Organisation at the University of Maryland, USA. Dr
Segal looked at the consequences of utilising women in the military
with particular emphasis on the impact of women on the cohesion
of Army units. He found that "a robust negative impact of
gender composition on task cohesion in military units has never
been demonstrated. The major influence on task cohesion seems
to be successful task performance, frequently through common training".
He also found that "in the United States (the argument that
inclusion of a minority group would be detrimental to unit cohesion)
was used successfully to forestall racial integration of the military
in the 1940s, to limit gender integration in the 1970s, and to
exclude homosexuals in the 1990s and into the 21st century".
3.6 Dr Segal's paper describes societal
situations that have resonance in Britain today. It is possible
to see comparisons with the current statements made by the MoD
concerning the perceived problems of integrating women into the
Armed Services with statements made by them about the integration
of gays and lesbians. In a memorandum submitted to the Select
Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, by the MoD on 4 March 1996
it was stated that "if integration had to be attempted its
failure would cause disharmonies and frictions with a significant
impact on cohesion and thus the moral component of Fighting Power.
Jeopardising this would undermine National Security and put lives
avoidably at risk, both on operations and in dangerous peacetime
training." Furthermore, "the Department notes that the
assessment has been conducted on the basis of acceptance that
the Chiefs of Staff and the Department itself have as their primary
purpose the maintenance of the ability to deliver operationally
effective and efficient Armed Forces. The assessment further accepts
that to this end good discipline, morale and unit cohesion are
essential".
3.7 Lesbian women and gay men were finally
accepted into the Armed Services in 1999 as a result of the European
Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of Grady and others
v MoD. It is worth noting that the integration of gays and lesbians
into the Armed Services has been achieved without difficulty.
3.8 When the MoD completes its study of
the impact on the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces
of opening all posts to women, it is clear that public opinion
will have a bearing on the final decision of Ministers. But as
women are already in a range of frontline roles—for example
in ships and as fighter pilots, they already enjoy a level of
public acceptance of their role as part of Britain's frontline
defence.
3.9 Women remain excluded from frontline
combat roles in the Army—some 1,300 (30%) of posts. A total
of 47 Cap Badges currently do not accept women, including some
of the most prestigious Regiments in the British Army. Women are
also excluded from jobs in the Royal Marines and in the RAF Regiment
and some posts in the Territorial Army. The Royal Navy also considers
that there are medical reasons for excluding all women from submarine
service and mine clearance diving.
4. EOC CONCERNS
ABOUT THE
RECRUITMENT OF
WOMEN
4.1 The Armed Services' history of dismissing
women on pregnancy and a number of high profile sexual harassment
cases has resulted in a lack of women in middle and senior ranks
and a public profile that does not encourage women to join. In
respect of the recruitment of more women, there are two main issues
of concern to the EOC:
— the need for non-discriminatory recruitment
and selection procedures and
— the need for lawful special measures
to increase the pool of good candidates.
4.2 Physical Fitness Requirements
4.2.1 All three Services originally had
physical fitness standards that were different for men and women.
This was a reflection of the fact that women, in general, find
it harder to pass tests of physical prowess, particularly those
which measure upper-body strength, and are given a lower pass
mark in order to pass. This could constitute direct sex discrimination
against men who pass the lower standard required of women but
are denied access to the job. Yet requiring both sexes to pass
the fitness standard set for men could indirectly discriminate
against women who would pass the tests in much smaller proportions
unlike direct sex discrimination, it is possible to justify indirect
discrimination against job related criteria. Tests that are based
on the actual requirements of the job will identify the best people
and ensure the best fighting force and these are the only tests
that comply with the sex discrimination legislation.
4.2.2 In 1995 the EOC drew these concerns
to the attention of the Army, who undertook a comprehensive review
of its fitness testing for recruits with the help of the EOC.
As part of the review the physical requirements of all posts in
the Army were analysed and a range of fitness standards for each
post were identified. Access to every post is dependent on the
level of fitness achieved. The EOC welcomed the Army's so called
"gender-free" tests. It considers that the measurement
of fitness and physical ability to undertake the requirements
of particular jobs as being the only relevant, non-discriminatory
way of assessing people's suitability for work and identifying
the best men and women for particular jobs. The EOC has recommended
the rigorous development of the new tests to the civilian uniformed
services as a model of best practice.
4.2.3 The Army's new "gender-free"
physical fitness selection tests for recruits came into force
on 1 April 1998. At that time the Army indicated their intention
to roll out the new testing regime into areas other than recruitment.
However, some parts of the Services continue to use different
test standards for men and women (termed "gender-fair"
tests) as an assessment of non-job related fitness which are potentially
unlawfully discriminatory against men. The work to extend the
gender free tests needs to be urgently completed within and across
all the Services.
4.3 Special Measures
4.3.1 At the moment it is impossible to
know the "true" application rate for women to the Armed
Services—it has been limited by past discriminatory practices
and traditional assumptions about the role of women for so long.
The SDA allows employers to undertake special measures to increase
the numbers of people who apply to their organisation from groups
who are currently under represented. Special measures can include
single-sex training initiatives to equip people to work in jobs
more often carried out by members of the opposite sex. It also
permits special encouragement to women only, or to men only, to
apply for jobs more usually done by members of the opposite sex.
4.3.2 The Armed Services have allocated
significant resources in recent years to special measures aimed
at increasing recruitment from people from ethnic minority communities,
but similar initiatives aimed at women recruits have not been
undertaken with the same imperative. Although the Army officer
training centre at Sandhurst utilises the positive action provisions
of the SDA to provide single sex training courses for women officers,
the EOC recommends that the Armed Services take special measures
to widen the career choice for women in the Services.
5. CONCERNS ABOUT
THE RETENTION
OF WOMEN
5.1 From a history of recruiting women,
but dismissing them when they became pregnant, the challenge for
the Services today, is not only to recruit more women, but also
to retain them. In respect of the retention of more women, there
are two main issues of concern to the EOC:
— the lack of opportunities to balance
work and family life.
5.2 Sexual harassment
5.2.1 In December 1991 the European Commission
published its Recommendations and Code of Practice on The Protection
of the Dignity of Women and Men at Work. The EC Code defines sexual
harassment as "unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, or other
conduct based on sex affecting the dignity of women and men at
work. This can include unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal
conduct". Sexual harassment can amount to unlawful sex discrimination
under the SDA. Claims of sexual harassment can be brought against
the harasser and the employer in an Employment Tribunal. Under
the SDA an employer is liable for the discriminatory acts of employees
acting in the course of their employment, whether or not they
are done with the employer's knowledge or approval, unless an
employer can show that they took such steps as were reasonably
practical to prevent the employee from doing the unlawful act.
5.2.2 Surveys conducted within the UK have
shown that sexual harassment is widespread and that it can have
a serious impact on women, both as individuals and as a group.
Studies have also shown that some groups of women may be particularly
at risk. Young women, women working in traditionally male jobs,
disabled women and women who are divorced or separated may be
especially vulnerable; while women from black and ethnic minorities
may experience harassment that is both sexual and racial. Sexual
harassment of women hinders progress towards equality. The consequences
for an individual can be serious: sexual harassment can make her
unwell and it can eventually lead to her resignation. The consequences
for her team can be disastrous. An organisation that permits or
condones sexual harassment is one that does not see women as equal
members of the workforce, where women's status in the workplace
is undermined and where the organisation does not operate at peak
performance levels.
5.2.3 All three Services have introduced
comprehensive sexual harassment policies. All service men and
women receive a copy. Each service has produced videos, posters,
"credit card" help leaflets, and a confidential help
line available throughout the world. Each Service Unit has a trained
Equal Opportunities Officer who is able to deal confidentially
with complaints, and it is clear that complaints are the responsibility
of the chain of command to resolve. Yet the EOC remains concerned
that the culture of the Services still acts to dissuade women
from making complaints for fear of displaying weakness, demoralising
the team structure or damaging her own or another's career.
5.2.4 The EOC receives complaints from individuals
who are not able or prepared to take their complaint internally.
Over the last two and a half years the EOC has received 12 complaints
of sexual harassment from women members of the Armed Services.
The majority of our complainants are women who have left or are
about to leave the Services. They routinely report that they were
not informed about the complaint procedure and/or were dissuaded
from using it. Those who do use the procedure complain about the
excessive time delays in addressing their complaint—in one
case 12 months elapsed before the Armed Services' investigation
was complete.
5.2.5 The Army has now established focus
groups that assess the level of harassment and the extent to which
equality is reaching individuals in the Service. This is a good
example of a means of developing an understanding of equality
from the grassroots without drawing unwanted attention to particular
women and the EOC recommends that similar groups be used by the
other Services to evaluate their equality policies and procedures.
5.3 Work—Life Balance
5.3.1 Equality does not mean simply treating
everyone the same—an organisation needs to value the diversity
of its workforce, and recognise the different needs and aspirations
of all its people. By building on that diversity an organisation
can make the best use of its human resources, improve motivation
and retention, attract good quality recruits and thereby improve
its operational effectiveness.
5.3.2 The Armed Service's response to women's
return to work after maternity leave has been one of the most
difficult cultural problems to address. It is questionable whether
return from maternity leave has been implemented sympathetically
in very many cases. There was, and in some cases, there remains
a view that to be in the Armed Services is incompatible with family
life—at least for women.
5.3.3 All Services now have policies on
how to accommodate women back into work after maternity leave.
Despite this the EOC has received 12 complaints from women over
the last two years. Pregnant women routinely report that they
are treated unsympathetically during their pregnancy and/or on
their return. Managers report that women on maternity leave are
not replaced so there is a reluctance to employ women in key roles,
and pressure may be put on women on maternity leave to return
sooner than they need in order that their job is covered.
5.3.4 One woman was posted away from her
husband, whilst another was transferred to a post which required
her to work a 12-hour shift pattern; no rearrangements of the
shifts were permitted on the grounds that this would have been
unfair to others. A third woman was not offered any support on
her return to work but simply told to ring "Social Services"
for help to arrange childcare although childcare is not routinely
available outside office hours. A serving Royal navy officer was
"allowed to be medically downgraded" and given a shore-posting
for the duration of her pregnancy, but was expected to recommence
sea service within just four months of giving birth. The MoD allows
Servicewomen the statutory minimum maternity rights available
to civilian women. Whilst they report that compassionate reasons
are taken into account before any posting, it is clear that managers
need clear guidance on how to undertake suitable and sufficient
assessments of the risks to the health and safety of a new or
expectant mother and her baby whilst at work.
5.3.5 A common complaint from senior officers
is that men, or women without children will be disadvantaged if
a new or expectant mother is given preferential treatment, such
as a fixed shift pattern, or allowed time off to breast feed.
Section 2(2) of the SDA permits special treatment to be afforded
to women in connection with pregnancy and childbirth.
5.3.6 Fathers too need time and space to
be with their families and it is clear that many cases of premature
voluntary release, particularly from the Royal Navy, are because
fathers want to see more of their children. A more inclusive approach
to the issues of ensuring a better work-life balance for all Service
personnel would help to retain staff and reduce the waste of talented
and expensively trained personnel.
5.3.7 In an interview with the Daily Telegraph
published on 10 August 2000, General Sir Charles Guthrie, Chief
of the Defence Staff stated that "retention remains a problem—one
of the reasons we can't retain them is that there is a huge amount
of turbulence—and this is especially true for families—in
certain parts of the Services". It is important that the
culture within the Armed Services continues to change to support
and build on diversity, recognising that at particular periods
in life, people have different needs and expectations.
6. EOC CONCERNS
ABOUT THE
EXCLUSION OF
WOMEN FROM
SUBMARINES
6.1 The Royal Navy claims that there are
medical reasons for excluding all women from submarine service
and mine clearance diving based on research undertaken by the
Institute of Naval Medicine (INM). In 1997 they were given the
specific task to study "the risk to the foetus from ionising
radiation and chemical insults in the submarine atmosphere to
determine whether a categoric assurance could be given to women
serving in submarines that it is safe for them and an unborn child".
6.2 The study established that there was
no risk from ionising radiation, which is lower on a submarine
than ashore. However studies on pregnant animals had shown congenital
deformities at 6% exposure to carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is
present in the submarine atmosphere at 0.5% but can rise to 1%.
INM studies on the effects of carbon dioxide on men showed reversible
metabolic changes and had resulted in the setting of exposure
limits.
6.3 The INM had insufficient information
to assess the risk to pregnant women, but given the hazard identified
by exposure of high levels of carbon dioxide on pregnant animals,
they advised that pregnant women should not be exposed to the
submarine atmosphere. The same atmospheric conditions exist in
spacecraft, but NASA has chosen to disregard the concerns, trusting
that women will not seek to become pregnant before flights.
6.4 The ECJ has recently ruled in the case
of Mahlburg v Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern that the application
of provisions of national law concerning the protection of pregnant
women cannot result in unfavourable treatment regarding their
access to employment. This judgement puts the legality of the
Royal Navy's reason for excluding all women from submarine service
under doubt.
6.5 We believe that the Royal Navy may be
unlawfully discriminating against all women because of a possible
perceived danger to a few. The additional daily payments to submariners
mean that this is also an equal pay issue for women in the Navy;
and the fact that all male ratings are liable to be conscripted
into the Submarine Service whilst women are excluded from service
in submarines means that there is also a potential claim of sex
discrimination from a male conscript who considered he has been
disadvantaged on the ground of his sex. If the situation remains
unchanged, further litigation would appear to be inevitable as
both women and men seek to clarify their individual rights.
6.6 The Equal Treatment Directive and SDA
draw a distinction between the nature of work performed, and the
circumstances where that work is performed. The nature of the
work on board a submarine is such that there are no jobs that
women cannot do. But the living conditions on board are cramped
and totally lacking in personal privacy and are such that the
Royal Navy may be able to argue that its policy of excluding women
is lawful under the Equal Treatment Directive and section 7(2)(c)
of the genuine occupational qualifications of the SDA.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 The EOC is pleased to have worked in
partnership with the MoD over the past nine years, and at the
tremendous progress that has been made by the military towards
becoming modern Armed Services aware of equal opportunities. We
look forward to working together more closely in the future.
7.2 There is still a lot to do. Recruits
today demand the best standards of practice that prevail in society
at large. The Armed Services are competing to recruit high quality
talented men and women, who need to see that they can have a career
that provides the best practice that prevails in other employment
sectors. To be successful in attracting and keeping the best candidates,
men and women of all races and cultures, the Armed Service must
be able to respond to these demands.
7.3 For the Armed Services the costs of
continuing inequality will mean inefficiency in the use of human
resources with high staff turnover, low performance and a restricted
pool of talent. The costs of grievances and Tribunal cases will
inevitably escalate in terms of monetary awards, legal expenses,
officer time and bad publicity; and the resulting poor public
image will continue to deter prospective high quality recruits.
7.4 Conversely, the benefits of equality
signify enhanced operational effectiveness the best use of human
resources with reduced turnover and a more motivated workforce,
an improved public image, and a workforce that looks more like
the country it serves and protects.
1 Cases concern the calculation of compensation (2),
combat effectiveness (1), equal pay (4), genuine occupational
qualifications (2), part-time working of a civilian (1), treatment
during pregnancy (4), recruitment (1), redundancy (1), sexual
harassment (8), and work abroad/outside scope of SDA (1). Back
| 
