DDB 48 Graphical Paper and Media Union
Submission by The Graphical
Paper and Media Union to the Joint Committee on the Draft Disability
Discrimination Bill
Response to the Consultation on
the Disability Bill
The Graphical Paper and Media Union
represents approximately 100,000 workers in the printing, paper,
publishing and packaging industries. Within that we also have
substantial membership at Remploy as well as representing disabled
people in open employment.
Generally we welcome the bill as a
step towards delivering full civil rights for disabled people.
However, we are increasingly disturbed at the use of regulation
rather than primary legislation to put new laws into effect.
The bill is in outline only and the 'meat on the bones' will only
come through secondary legislation. As yet there is no commitment
on timescales for the introduction of secondary legislation.
We are strongly of the opinion that there should be a clear commitment
to introduce the secondary legislation by a given date or dates
and this should be announced to the public.
This is a poor substitute for primary
legislation and this practice should be resisted in future.
There are a number of points we would
wish to raise on behalf of our members in relation to the substance
of the bill. Of crucial importance is the definition of disability
which is a huge hurdle that is frequently used to deny justice
to disabled workers.
Definition of Disability
Specifically, we believe that the definition
of day-to-day activities is too narrow especially in relation
to the effects of mental health disabilities. The tests rely
too heavily on medically well-recognised conditions and are incapable
of assessing recurrent conditions. Depression is a particularly
distressing example the GPMU has had many examples of having to
turn down cases because it is impossible to get a more specific
diagnosis yet it is clear from interviewing the member that he
or she is not able to cope with work in the same way a before
the depression took hold.
The tests do not relate to the workplace
specifically and so lead to perverse judgements that declare someone
is not disabled when clearly they are unable to undertake their
job responsibilities in the same way as their colleagues because
they require a reasonable adjustment to take account of the different
way in which they need to operate.
In terms of progressive conditions
it would be preferable protect people from the point of diagnosis
and use regulations to spell out which conditions are covered.
This would actually be a sensible use of secondary legislation
and avoid requiring people to jump through hoops to gain protection
that commonsense indicates clearly should be available.
If the government's aim continues to
be that disabled people should be able to work wherever possible,
then these measures would actually help to keep people in jobs
while they adjust to their new circumstances. Here it would be
appropriate to mention the role of disability leave which is not
part of the bill. The high figures available on industrial injury
and our experience that people often end up unemployed as a result
of such injury indicate that there is a substantial role for disability
leave in ensuring that people stay in work wherever possible.
Most of these people do not want to lose their jobs and the increased
security that disability leave would offer may even speed their
recovery by removing additional stress at a time of acute vulnerability.
Genetic predisposition has not been
included in the legislation and this is going to be a growing
problem that should be dealt with early to set clear limits on
companies' policies. There is a real danger that genetic testing
data could be used in a totally inappropriate way that undermines
employers' duties to provide a safe and healthy working environment
and that the real meaning of such data will be poorly understood
in any case.
The final point under this section
is to request that the continual re-testing of people claiming
incapacity benefit is brought to an end. Once it has been established
that someone has a disability that should be the end of it. This
is not the same as saying that everyone claiming incapacity benefit
should be deemed to be disabled, only where it is appropriate.
Public Duty
Our main concern with this section
is consistent with our position on all discrimination legislation.
We believe that the duty to promote should be extended to the
private sector. It cannot be right that we introduce a hierarchy
of rights where public sector employees enjoy a much higher standard
of treatment than those in the private sector.
We are also of the opinion that there
needs to be an action plan to implement the duty or it will remain
no more than a pious hope that equality for disabled people can
become a positive measure rather than simply an individual right
that encourages tribunal cases to be brought.
Transport
A frequently mentioned barrier to full
participation at work by disabled people is the ability to access
transport to get to work. One of the issues raised with us has
been that when Remploy factories close or re-organise, for instance,
the change in transport required for transferred employees is
inadequate. It is therefore crucial that the government gives
a clear commitment to introduce the secondary legislation specifying
the duties for various forms of transport at a specified time
that is the shortest possible timescale to ensure all forms of
public transport are covered.
Reinstatement or Reengagement
Given the well-documented problems
of disabled people facing barriers to employment and the lack
of rehabilitation of those injured at work into the workplace,
this is one Task Force recommendation that must be included in
the new legislation. A disabled person losing employment will
almost certainly find it harder to find a new job. If that person
has suffered discrimination it is only right that the tribunal
have greater powers to order reinstatement or reengagement.
Disability-related questions
This is another Task Force recommendation
that has been ignored. The government has stated, in its response
to the Task Force recommendations that they do not wish to introduce
a limitation on questions that can be asked about a person's disability
in case small employers get caught out.
This is an astonishing approach to
a piece of legislation that clearly has the role of instigating
a change in culture in relation to disability. The fact that
employers might fall foul of the law begs the question of why
we have any laws given that we could all find ourselves in breach
at any time.
The answer is not to ignore the problem
but to educate employers about all the provisions of the disability
legislation to ensure they are clear about their duties. It really
does not serve to improve the performance of small companies to
allow them to behave in a cavalier fashion towards their employees
by excluding them from perfectly reasonable legal duties.
Anticipatory Duty
The need to remove the systematic barriers
that disabled people face at work means that we feel it is important
to extend the existing duty covering Parts III and IV on goods
and services to Part II Employment. This is especially relevant
if the duty to promote is not to be extended to the private sector.
Justification
The GPMUs own conference has established
clear policy that they wish the section of the law allowing justification
of discrimination to be abolished. We recognise that European
law has reduced the scope of this feature of the law but still
feel that it is wrong and should be removed.
Furthermore, the GPMU is concerned
at the use of the concept of 'a reasonable person' in judging
whether an employer has acted reasonably and can justify the treatment
of the disabled employee is dangerous. There is no such thing
as a reasonable person in reality because everyone is a product
of their society and its inherent stereotypical reactions and
prejudices. This is an unnecessary development and has already
led to perverse judgements. The introduction of new legislation
is an opportunity to deal with this inappropriate section.
Finally we reiterate that we welcome
much that is in the bill. It will undoubtedly help disabled people
at work. Our proposals are made with the
intention of strengthening the law
and making it work more effectively. These changes would go some
way to meeting the government objective of getting many more disabled
people into work.
|
