This book includes a plain text version that is designed for high accessibility. To use this version please follow this link.
Finance Focus Ian Felice


Partner- Hassans & CEO- Line Management Services Limited 57/63 Line Wall Road, Gibraltar


Lucy Money Employment Law Solicitor


Tel - +(350) 200 79000 Fax - +(350) 200 71966 Email - ian.felice@hassans.gi Website - www.gibraltarlaw.com


Fox Website: www.foxlawyers.com


WOMEN IN FINANCE How many women are on your board?


The new rules


Lord Davies issued his report about female representation on corporate boards in February last year. That report led to the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills publishing draft regulations entitled “The Companies Act 2006 (Strategic Report and Directors’ Report) Regulations 2013” in October 2012. Quoted companies will be required to prepare a strategic report each financial year showing the number of persons of each sex who are directors, managers and employees of the company. This is intended to put pressure on companies to increase the number of women occupying senior roles and this will have an impact on recruitment.


An equally qualified man and woman each compete for the same role. The woman is offered the position - what would the man do?


Under the Equality Act 2010, sex is a protected characteristic. Pursuant to sections 13, 19, 27, 39(1) and 39(3), sex discrimination in the context of recruitment is unlawful.


The man would be quick to point out that he had been discriminated against and he would probably allege direct and indirect discrimination.


In this scenario, direct


discrimination occurs where a man is treated less favourably because he is a man. Indirect discrimination occurs where an employer applies to a person a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to his being a man.


Does an employer have a defence?


Pursuant to section 159 of the Equality Act, positive action in the context of this recruitment scenario would be permissible where an employer reasonably thinks that:


(i) women suffer a disadvantage connected to being a woman; or


106 www.finance-monthly.com


There are two approaches employers can take re- garding job specifications: (i) make them very brief; or (ii) make them very detailed.


Brief job specifications give an employer greater flexibility. Where certain skills and experience differ significantly between candidates, it might be easier for an employer to decide that the skills and experience exhibited by one candidate are more relevant and desirable for the role than those exhibited by the other. The downside is that an employer’s decision may be easier to challenge, particularly where a disproportionately low barrier to apply for the role has been set.


(ii) women’s participation in senior roles within listed companies disproportionately low.


is


Such positive action entails treating a woman more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than a man because the woman has the protected characteristic and the man does not. The aim of such positive action must be to encourage women to overcome or minimise disadvantage and to participate in senior executive roles. This positive action defence only applies where : (i) the woman is as qualified as the man; (ii) the employer does not have a policy of treating women more favourably in recruitment; and (iii) taking such action is a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims set out above.


In practice it should be relatively easy for an employer to demonstrate the “disadvantage” and “disproportionately low” number of women rep- resented within senior roles.


Drafting job specifications


One hurdle is the assessment of whether one can- didate is “as qualified as” another. The expression “candidates of equal merit” is used in guidance published by the Government.


Very detailed job descriptions, on the other hand, tend to give rise to paper trails demonstrating objectivity. The downside is that qualitative differences between candidates will not necessarily be captured.


Quotas


The positive action argument cannot be relied upon to justify a general policy of hiring women rather than men in order to reach a certain quota as it is not permissible under the Equality Act. The positive action defence is more appropriate for an allegation of direct discrimination than indirect discrimination.


Accordingly we are advising employers not to adopt a “hire women to fulfil a quota” policy. The existence of such a policy would be evidence of a discriminatory provision, criterion or practice on which a claim for indirect discrimination could be based.


It is unfortunate that the objective of the draft regulations does not fit comfortably within the operation of existing discrimination law. Employers are bound to bear in mind their soon- to-be-published female representation statistics when devising their recruitment policies.


Legislation aside, the issue facing companies seeking to recruit more diverse boards is the pool of available talent. By ensuring a greater number of women apply for senior roles, e.g. through advertisements in journals likely to be read by women, an employer need not engage in overt positive action, it may simply appoint the best candidate applying for the job and it is more likely this person will be a woman.


Lucy Money is a solicitor specialising in employment law at City law firm Fox


Fox is a specialist employment and partnership law firm based in the heart of the City of London.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126