Call Us
08000 224 224
Transported to Europe
BSE: Blame someone else for industrial disease
Privacy and freedom of reporting
More recent cases on the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981: 2 TUPE loops the loop
A postcard from the EU
If you don't ask you don't get
Restrictive reporting Orders (RROs) can be made by Employment Tribunals to prevent the identification of any person affected by or making allegations. RROs are only available in cases which appear to "involve allegations of the commission of a sexual offence" (Rule 13(6) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure). In this case the applicant won an argument that the Equal Treatment Directive could be relied on to grant a RRO although her case did not involve a sexual offence.
A is a male to female transsexual who was turned down for a job with the Police on the grounds that she was still legally male and could not conduct searches of female suspects and prisoners that went beyond outer clothing. She brought an employment tribunal claim of sex discrimination. From the start of the proceedings A sought anonymity and the Employment tribunal made an RRO after hearing evidence from the applicant and her representative. They decided to grant an RRO otherwise it would deter the applicant from seeking a remedy for sex discrimination. The police are bound by the Directive itself as an emanation of the state. A has a right under the Equal Treatment Directive not to suffer discrimination in access to employment. Article 6 requires the UK to ensure that she has effective remedies, without an RRO she could not exercise her right.
The EAT supported this conclusion. The EAT and by analogy the Tribunal has an inherent jurisdiction under the Equal Treatment Directive to make a restrictive reporting order. There was evidence that without an RRO the applicant would be deprived of an effective remedy.
There may be other cases where it may also be appropriate for RROs to be made.
Cases which concern very private matters like sexual orientation or personal medical details in disability claims are just two examples, where applicants may be deterred from pursuing their remedies because of fear of publicity or personal details being made public. There must be a balance however between matters such as freedom of expression, freedom of the press and the right to a public hearing have also to be taken into account.