The Committee for Employment and Social Security (ESS) also oppose amendments 3 to 11. We have not yet had comments from them on those amendments laid after the deadline other than their own amendments 14 to 17. For the ESS media release please click the button below.

Some of the amendments opposed by the GDA would be discriminatory whilst others are potentially already covered in the Ordinance. The following looks at all the amendments in order of concerns from the GDA.

Proposed by: Deputy C Blin

Seconded by: Deputy D De Lisle

This Amendment proposes to insert a new exception relating to small employers.
Part 1 – This part of the Amendment seeks to exempt any employer with five or fewer employers from the protected ground of carer status.
Part 2 – This part of the Amendment seeks to except employers with five or fewer employees from the duty to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled person under sections 32 or 33 – that’s the general duty to provide reasonable adjustments for a disabled person and the proactive duty of service providers, schools and education providers in respect of disabled persons generally (i.e. the reactive and the proactive/anticipatory duties).

The GDA strongly oppose both parts of this amendment. To exclude protection from discrimination on the grounds of carer status, and the duty to provide reasonable adjustments on the ground of disability, for small businesses would be discriminatory, undermining and weaking protection for carers and persons with disabilities.

Click the button below to find 10 reasons why amendment 8 should not be supported.

Click the button below to read the letter on amendment 8 from Rob Platts to Deputy Chris Blin.

Press the button below to read Carol’s open letter regarding amendment 8

Deputy Lindsay de Sausmarez’s speech on amendment 8 is available below by clicking the button.

Amendment 8 has been rejected. To see how deputies voted click on the button below.

Proposed by: Deputy J F Dyke

Seconded by: Deputy S Aldwell

This Amendment seeks to remove the disapplication of the maximum award limits where there is a complaint of victimisation as part of a joined complaint.

This amendment intends to set the maximum award limits where there is a complaint of victimisation as part of a joined complaint.

Victimisation is where a complaint of discrimination has been made and then someone tries to stop the complaint from continuing. This means that it is an intentional and malicious act to stop a complaint being pursued.

There is already a cap on the compensation for discrimination and victimisation but as two separate claims. To have the cap as one claim would mean that the most severe discrimination, which would potentially reach the maximum limit, would not have any availability, withing the cap, for an award for victimisation.

The GDA strongly opposes having a single cap for discrimination and victimisation. We would not, however, oppose clarification of the cap applicable to victimisation, if this has caused any issues.

Amendment 16 has been laid by the ESS to further clarify the limits on compensation for victimisation and is supported by the GDA hoping that this will enable Deputies to be reassured that there are no awards that could potentially be limitless as some are under the UK legislation.

Proposed by: Deputy Inder

Seconded by: Deputy Helyar

Amendment 13 would remove the compensation for non-pecuniary damages for anxiety stress and other non-financial damages for discrimination that has happened in employment.

If you want to see how Deputies voted click on the button below.

Proposed by: Deputy Moakes

Seconded by: Deputy Vermeulen

Amendment 6 looks to reduce the compensation for injury to feelings from a maximum of £10,000 proposed by the Ordinance to a maximum of £5,000.

Click on the button below to see how the Deputies voted.

Proposed by: Deputy J. Dyke

Seconded by: Deputy C. Le Tissier

Amendment 4 and subsequent amendments 4a and 4b, which split the original amendment, provide for:

1. The definition of “contract of employment” to cover contracts for service in the traditional way. It should not cover contracts for services e.g. engaging a plumber to fix the boiler; and
2. Not having protection from discrimination in relation to pay.

Amendment 14 Proposed by: Deputy P J Roffey and Seconded by: Deputy H L de Sausmarez which the GDA supports helps with the definition of “contract of employment” and the GDA supports this.

Amendment 4 and 4a are withdrawn with the passing of amendment 17 and the split of the original amendment. Amendment 4b is therefore the only amendment that the States was asked to vote on.

To see how the Deputies voted on amendment 4b click on the button below.

Proposed by: Deputy C.P. Meerveld

Seconded by: Deputy M.C. Leadbeater

Amendment 5 looks to exclude discrimination by clubs and associations in imposing requirements to possess relevant skills, experience or professional integrity, or by requiring the passing of examinations.

The Ordinance already has provision for any organisation to discriminate if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This would allow professional clubs and associations to have rules relating to skills etc . The amendment would permit people to be discriminated by clubs and organisations even when it was not a legitimate aim. For instance, a sports club could exclude anyone with an intellectual disability from joining by putting in an arbitrary qualification.

Proposed by: Deputy C.P. Meerveld

Seconded by: Deputy M.C. Leadbeater

Amendment 12 again looks to exclude discrimination by clubs and associations in imposing requirements to possess relevant skills, experience or professional integrity, or by requiring the passing of examinations as does amendment 5 which was also laid by the same proposer and seconder.

The Ordinance already has provision for any organisation to discriminate if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This would allow professional clubs and associations to have rules relating to skills etc . The amendment would permit people to be discriminated by clubs and organisations even when it was not a legitimate aim. For instance, a sports club could exclude anyone with an intellectual disability from joining by putting in an arbitrary qualification.

To find out how deputies voted click the button below.

Proposed by: Deputy R C Murray

Seconded by: Deputy S P Haskins

Amendment 3 looks to remove the power of the ESS to make resolution to ask the full States for agreement on these issues instead. This could provide delays in future but would not delay the implementation of the Ordinance.

This amendment was approved but also see the subsequent amendment 17 which deleted guidance from having to come back to the States.

To see how deputies voted click the button below.

Proposed by: Deputy P.T.R. Ferbrache

Seconded by: Deputy D.J. Mahoney

Amendment 7 relates to immigration and population management but is not brought by the Committee for Home Affairs. If approved it would remove the exclusion of discrimination that is for the public good from the immigration section and action taken is a proportionate means of achieving that aim from the population management sections.

This amendment was approved, and you can find out how deputies voted by clicking the button below.

Proposed by: Deputy A. Matthews

Seconded by: Deputy L. Queripel

Amendment 9 appears to provide no further protection in relation to freedom of speech than is currently in the Ordinance. We believe that this Amendment has been put to enable a debate on the freedom of speech.

If you want to see how your Deputies voted on this amendment, please click the button below.

Proposed by: Deputy S P Haskins

Seconded by: Deputy D Mahoney

This amendment looks at when our private household starts in relation to houses of multiple occupancy and excludes local market properties from the provision meaning that the household for open market part D houses of multiple occupancy would have the exclusion from the prevention of discrimination at the door of the room or rooms you are renting whereas the exemption for the local market multiple occupancy would start at the front door of the whole property.

We support clarity on the meaning of houses of multiple occupancy that has been proposed in amendment 15 by the ESS, but the GDA does not support amendment 10 which would provide different rules for open market and local market landlords.

Proposed by: His Majesty’s Procureur

Seconded by: His Majesty’s Comptroller

At the end of the proposition, insert “, subject to the amendment indicated below”.
In paragraph 41(b) of the Schedule, for “sports term” substitute “sports team”.

This is just to correct a typo and is supported by the GDA.

For the voting click on the button below.

Proposed by: Deputy Y Burford

Seconded by: Deputy P T R Ferbrache

This amendment looks to introduce protection for secular belief as well as religious belief (which is already covered in the Ordinance). The GDA supports this amendment.

To see who voted which way click the button below.

Proposed by: Deputy P J Roffey

Seconded by: Deputy H L de Sausmarez

The amendment adds clarity on what constitute a “contract of employment” following the amendments 4 and 4a.

The GDA supports this amendment.

Proposed by: Deputy P J Roffey

Seconded by: Deputy H L de Sausmarez

The amendment adds clarity on what constitute a “close relative” and “house of multiple occupation” following amendment 10.

The GDA supports this amendment.

This amendment was passed. If you want to see how your deputies have voted click on the button below.

Proposed by: Deputy P J Roffey

Seconded by: Deputy H L de Sausmarez

The amendment adds clarity on the limits for awards for compensation for victimisation.

The GDA supports this amendment.

Proposed by: Deputy P J Roffey

Seconded by: Deputy H L de Sausmarez

The amendment removes guidelines from the substantive Ordinance as was amended by amendment 3 that was previously approved.

The GDA supports this amendment.

This amendment was approved. Click the button below to find out how deputies voted.