The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has announced that migrants working in Britain without legal authorization are entitled to sue for workplace harassment. This update follows the implementation of the Employment Rights Act, a major legislative change introduced by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner.
The £5,000 Fisherbeck Hotel precedent
A previous legal victory involving Erin Ong at the Fisherbeck Hotel in Ambleside, Cumbria, serves as a foundation for this shift in legal interpretation. as the report notes,Ong, a Malaysian migrant, was awarded over £5,000 after a tribunal found she had been subjected to discrimination despite lacking a valid work permit.
The ruling in the Ong case established that the illegality of an employment contract does not strip a worker of their right to protection from abuse. In that instance, the judge found that the discrimination—which included poor working conditions and invasive demands regarding her passport—was independent of her immigration status. This precedent ensures that the focus of the tribunal remains on the conduct of the employer rather than the legality of the worker's presence in the country.
Angela Rayner’s shift to "all reasonable steps"
The new Employment Rights Act, championed by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, introduces a significantly higher bar for employer compliance. According to the EHRC guidance cited in the report, businesses are now required to take "all reasonable steps" to prevent sexual and other forms of harassment, a standard that is notably stricter than the previous requirement to simply take "reasonable steps."
This heightened standard means that failure to implement robust prevention measures can lead to tribunal claims, even if the employee is working illegally. The guidance emphasizes that the abuse itself is not dependent on employment status, meaning a worker could have faced similar mistreatment regardless of their legal right to work in the UK.
Liability for harassment by customers and freelancers
Under the updated legal framework, companies are now potentially liable for harassment committed by third parties, such as customers or freelancers. This expansion of liability requires employers to demonstrate they have taken every possible reasonable precaution to protect their staff from external actors.
Failure to meet this expanded duty can result in tribunal claims that carry uncapped compensation payouts. These protections are broad, covering various protected characteristics including age, disability, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and gender reassignment, aiming to create a safer environment for all staff members regardless of their background.
The clash between labor rights and Chris Philp’s border security stance
The political response to these changes has been sharply divided, with Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp labeling the move "farcical." Philp argues that the government's priority should be securing national borders rather than extending legal rights to those who are in the country illegally.
This tension raises several critical questions that remain unanswered by the current legislation. it is unclear how the government intends to balance these expanded labor protections with the enforcement of immigration laws, or whether these rights might inadvertently create a legal pathway that complicates the policing of illegal employment. While a government spokesman maintains that the changes are essential for workplace safety, the friction between immigration enforcement and human rights remains a central point of contention in the UK political landscape.
Comments 0