Search
GOOGLE
Record
Damages Against the BMA
Mr Rajendra Chaudhary(FRCS)
-v- BMA
Doctors' trade union the
British Medical Association(BMA) will have to pay £814,878 in damages to
Mr Chaudhary, a member of the BMA. The BMA were found guilty of racially
discriminating against Mr Chaudhary by an Employment Tribunal in Manchester. This
is so far the highest-ever award made in a
race discrimination claim in the UK.
It appears the BMA would have to pay this large award, out of
its members' funds. It is not known, exactly how much the BMA has already spent in
respect of their abortive defence. Perhaps, its members must now
seek further details from the BMA as to their handling of this matter. The impact of this case on BMA's credibility
generally,has to be a very negative one. Weren't there any mechanisms
within the BMA to prevent one of their own doctor-members being so traumatised
by racism?. Sadly, further reading of the tribunal's findings only confirms that
the BMA had done very little, if any, to deal with racism within its own
ranks. Mr Chaudhary's case may have exposed only a small portion of the
problems that ethnic-minority doctors are facing when dealing with the BMA, but
it is likely, the other ugly sides of this trade union will be revealed with
passage of time.
::Among other things, the
Manchester Employment Tribunal Found::
We
were left with the impression that Mr Dowsett had not really gone into
the position closely when he came to consider what evidence he could
give, We do accept the applicant's evidence that the BMA's attitude to
these proceedings conveyed to members and to him by their general
publications and correspondence with his lawyers was that indirect
discrimination was less important than direct race discrimination and
we accept that he was disappointed by their attitude.
|
| Even more surprisingly, Dr Hawker
revealed to us late in his evidence that the respondents had already
established a Racial Equality Working Party at this time, but he could
not tell us what its terms of reference were and we find it clearly was
not involved in any of the relevant decisions in this case. |
The
only regret he expressed was that anyone should think that the
Department had acted unfairly. On that basis we do not find that the
respondents' actions mitigated the applicant's injury to feelings by
either sort of discrimination except to the minor extent that some
training has been arranged.
We think that the true position in the case is really that the
respondents have not done very much in all the circumstances and what
they have done has been done very late. We think that the setting up
of the committee is pointless unless it actually does something and we
were not impressed with Mr Dowsett's insight. In all those
circumstances therefore the effect of mitigation by the respondents'
actions is very minor indeed.
|
|
In the case of Chief Constable West Yorkshire Police
-v- Vento (No 2) 2002 IRLR 177 (a direct sex discrimination case) the
respondents' failure to investigate the applicant's complaint of
discrimination was described as "1nstitutional denial" and
held to be high-handed. The award of aggravated damages was upheld on
appeal although the amount was changed to £5,000. We record that we do
not find that
the respondents' conduct in this case was
malicious, insulting or oppressive. We do however find it correct to
liken it to the conduct of "Institutional denial" in Vento and
we do come to the conclusion that it was high-handed throughout.
|
| We
must consider whether we should only compensate the applicant in
relation to the conduct which was victimisation (which we do accept was
highhanded). We decide that we should not limit our consideration to
that but that we should consider all their conduct. We come to the
conclusion that the whole picture was one of high-handed conduct. The
victimisation conduct, in our view, was a further example of the general
reaction to the applicant's claims. The respondents' reaction was always
to avoid considering truly what he said and to brush his claims aside.
The reaction to his claim that they might have discriminated was to
avoid the potential consequences rather than consider whether the
allegation had any truth in it and to that extent was rather different
from the previous attitude but we come to the conclusion that overall
the conduct in question merits an award.... |
| He
had all the worry and frustration of having to deal with proceedings
himself when he should have been assisted. These are
refusals by an organisation which exists in order to help
and so there is an element of betrayal of trust which was sustained over
a period of about three years with repeated blows. |
::Other National and
International Coverage of this Case::
BBC
Guardian
Hospital Doctor
Mr
Chaudhary's Site
The
Times of India
©2000-2002 Medical-Journals.com
|