| v> | | | | following: |
| In the recent case of Famy v Hilton UK Hotels Ltd | | | | * The failure to promote him to bar manager was |
| [2006], an employee complained of discrimination in | | | | due to racial discrimination by the employer; and |
| relation to promotion opportunities. The employee | | | | * The grievance procedure was tainted by racial |
| was of Filipino background and had been employed as | | | | discrimination. |
| a bar supervisor in central London from June 1984 to | | | | The Tribunal ruled against the employee as there |
| October 2004. During this time the position of bar | | | | was insufficient evidence to prove racial discrimination |
| manager became available several times. However, it | | | | by the employer. The employee subsequently |
| was always external applicants who were appointed. | | | | appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal |
| The vacancies were advertised externally and | | | | ("EAT"). The appeal was dismissed. |
| internally. When the positions had become available, | | | | The EAT found the following based on the facts |
| the employee had not formally applied for them and | | | | presented before them: |
| subsequently had not been considered for promotion. | | | | * The positions had been advertised both internally |
| On one occasion in 2000, the employee applied for a | | | | and externally |
| vacancy as a bar manager. He was informed that the | | | | * The applicants who had been assigned to the |
| position no longer existed due to the restructuring of | | | | positions had actually applied for them |
| the catering department. Following the restructuring in | | | | * The employee had not applied for those positions; |
| 2004, the position was again advertised both | | | | and |
| externally and internally. This new position was for | | | | * When the employee had applied for the position of |
| the management of three bars which existed within | | | | bar manager, the position did not exist. |
| the hotel. The employee expressed a desire to take | | | | The EAT held that the applicants who had been |
| on the management of the cocktail bar, but no such | | | | appointed to the positions would have been treated |
| position existed. The employer said that bar manager | | | | in the same way as the employee. In those |
| role was for all three bars. As the employee did not | | | | circumstances, the employee failed to make out a |
| want to manage all three, he did not apply for the | | | | case for racial discrimination. The Tribunal was entitled |
| role. | | | | to rule that there was no discrimination. |
| The employee then commenced grievance | | | | © RT COOPERS, 2006. This Briefing Note does |
| proceedings against the employer and resigned in | | | | not provide a comprehensive or complete statement |
| early December 2004. He complained that he had | | | | of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it |
| been continually overlooked for the position as bar | | | | constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight |
| manager. He issued proceedings before the | | | | general issues. |
| Employment Tribunal ("Tribunal"). He argued the | | | | |