FSU General Secretary Lord Young took to the floor of the House of Lords this week to propose two amendments to the Employment Rights Bill, aimed at strengthening workplace free speech protections for all employees, not just those whose views happen to align with the cultural preferences of Britain’s legal elite.
While one amendment would modify the Equality Act 2010 and the other the Employment Rights Act 1996, both share a common goal: ensuring staff are not penalised for expressing lawful political opinions or affiliations in the workplace.
Setting out the case for Amendments 101B and 141A, Lord Young warned that the current legal framework offers only patchy protection to those whose views fall outside the increasingly tightly drawn boundaries of acceptable thought. Under the Equality Act, a person’s beliefs must meet the so-called ‘Grainger test’ to qualify for protection. But this five-part test is overly complex and inconsistently applied, leaving too much room for tribunal members’ personal biases.
That, in turn, has led to rulings that expose the inconsistencies at the heart of the framework. A belief in man-made climate change, for instance, is protected… but climate scepticism is not. Democratic socialism qualifies… but not conservatism, as confirmed by the judgment in Ms K Sunderland v The Hut.com Ltd – an FSU case in which the tribunal found that support for small government, low taxes, individual liberty and minimal state interference fell outside the scope of legal protection. Even anti-Zionism has been granted protected status, while Zionism – at least so far – has not. The cumulative effect is a system in which courts appear more willing to recognise views aligned with prevailing orthodoxy, while denying protection to mainstream alternatives on the other side of the political spectrum.
Lord Young’s reforms would simplify the law by extending protection to all political opinions that are lawful, worthy of respect in a democratic society, and not affiliated with proscribed organisations. This, he argued, would better align UK equality law with the more robust protections offered under Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Some may argue that any discrepancy between the Equality Act and the Convention will eventually be resolved, since under the Human Rights Act, UK courts must interpret domestic legislation compatibly with Convention rights. But as we know at the FSU, bringing a claim before an Employment Tribunal is often prohibitively expensive. In his speech, Lord Young cited the case of Carl Borg-Neal, a former bank manager whom we supported in a claim against Lloyds Bank. The cost? £85,000.
Nor are the delays any less punishing. Another FSU-backed claim – Saba Poursaeedi’s claim for political discrimination after he was dismissed over his association with Reform UK – isn’t scheduled to be heard until July 2027.
“Why not short-circuit this process,” Lord Young asked, “bring the Equality Act into line with the Convention, ease the burden on the Employment Tribunal, and protect people now from being discriminated against in this way?”
As is customary at Committee Stage, he withdrew the amendments following debate, with a view to reintroducing them at Report Stage.
