4 Compensation
67. We have heard enough evidence to satisfy
us that people have been wrongly denied employment because of
the services provided by the Consulting Association, and that
the practice of blacklisting may well extend further than that.
However, a number of factors make it very difficult for those
who have been discriminated against to seek redress.
68. One factor, as we discussed above, is that
many of those on TCA's blacklist may not be aware of their presence
on it. The ICO has demonstrated a very poor rate of return on
its attempts to alert individuals to their presence on the blacklist
and the vast majority of those 3,200 names must still be ignorant
of the fact, or have suspicions which they cannot prove. People
must be made aware that they have been blacklisted if they are
to be able to seek any form of redress.
69. Another problem, demonstrated by Dave Smith's
employment tribunal against Carillion, is that employers seem
to be able to evade responsibility for the employees of subcontractors.
This seems, prima facie, deeply unfair. If
a company discriminates against a worker on the basis of data
improperly (let alone inaccurately) held, that company should
be liable for any loss of earnings suffered. We recommend that
the Government reviews this as a matter of urgency.
70. We are also concerned about the issue of
proof of loss of earnings. It seems clear to us that if someone
is consistently denied work because of the presence of their name
on a blacklist, that should entitle them to compensation. However,
there are more nuanced cases. If people have had to move significantly
out of their home area to seek work, because they have been blacklisted
locally, that is surely a detriment to their home and family life.
It is not clear what provision could or should be made for that
in terms of compensation. We
will return to the issue of compensation in respect of blacklisting
as our inquiry progresses and seek to make concrete recommendations
to the Government.
| 
