R v Race Relations Board, ex parte Selvarajan
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE LAWTON,LORD JUSTICE SCARMAN,THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS |
| Judgment Date | 30 July 1975 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1975] EWCA Civ J0730-1 |
| Date | 30 July 1975 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1975] EWCA Civ J0730-1
The Master of The Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Lawton and
Lord Justice Scarman
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
The Appellant appeared in person.
Mr. M. BELOFF (instructed by Messrs. Lawford & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Respondents, The Race Relations Board and the North Metropolitan Conciliation Committee.
THE MASTER OF THE ROILS: This case raises questions about the procedure of the Race Relations Board.
Govindaswamy Selvarajan studied at the University of Madras and got degrees in physics and law. In 1955 he came to England. He was then aged 30. Two years later he entered the teaching profession here: and, whilst teaching, he studied further so that he became a Master of Science in the University of London: and he obtained the Post Graduate Certificate in Education. So he is well qualified academically. In September 1957, he was employed by the Inner London Education Authority. In September 1961, he was appointed to the City of Westminster College (now known as Welbrook College) as a lecturer in Mathematics and Physics. He started as a lecturer Grade I. He has been 14 years in that post in the same grade. That is very unusual. In the ordinary way a lecturer is promoted from Grade I to Grade II, within a few years. He feels that he has not been promoted because of his colour or race, and thus there has been unlawful discrimination against him. He complained to the Race Relations Board. It was referred to a Conciliation Committee and they formed the opinion that there had been unlawful discrimination against him. But the Race Relations Board itself took a different view. They refused to take proceedings on his behalf against his employers - the Inner London Education Authority. He then applied to the Divisional Court for an order of certiorari to quash the Board's determination. The Divisional Court refused. He now appeals to this Court.
The relevant section is section 3(l)(b) of the Race Relations Act 1968. It says that:
"It shall be unlawful for an employer, or any person connected with the employment of others, to discriminate against any other person… by refusing or deliberately omitting to afford or offer him…. the like opportunities for training andpromotion as the employer makes available for persons of the like qualifications employed in like circumstances".
That section only came into force on 25th November 1968. Mr. Selvarajan feels that, even before that date, he had been less favourably treated than others: but his actual complaint can, I think, only be made of matter arising after the Act was passed.
In February 1971, the staff of the college were informed that ten posts were to be upgraded to Lecturer Grade II, and that one of them had been allocated to the Science Department. The successful candidate was to be responsible for "careers advice". Lecturers Grade I were invited to apply. There were three candidates. They were interviewed by a Selection Board consisting of the Principal, the Vice-Principal, the Head of the Science Department and an Inspector of the ILEA. A Miss Lancaster was appointed. She was not so well qualified academically as Mr. Selvarajan, nor had she anywhere near such long service. Mr. Selvarajan was aggrieved that she had been appointed instead of him. He made a written complaint to the Race Relations Board against the Inner London Education Authority, fully documented with letters of commendation for his work during his career.
THE CONCILIATION COMMITTEE
On receiving that complaint the Board, in accordance with their power under the Statute, referred it to a Conciliation Committee: and it became the duty of the Conciliation Committee to investigate it, sec section 15(2)(a)(b). The Committee was the North Metropolitan Conciliation Committee. It had nine members of excellent qualifications. All were unpaid, giving their services voluntarily except for travelling expenses. The secretary was Miss Allport.
The Act says that:"…. in investigating any complaint, the Board or a Conciliation Committee shall make such inquiries as they thinknecessary with regard to the facts alleged in the complaint and form an opinion whether any person has done any act which is unlawful" - see section 15(3)(a) of the Act.
In making their investigation, the Board or the Committee are entrusted with a task which has important consequences, both for the complainant and the accused. If they form an opinion that an accused has done an act which is unlawful, it means that civil proceedings may be brought against him for an injunction or damages, see section 19: and he will be put to all the worry and expense of contesting those proceedings. If they form an opinion that the accused has not done an act which is unlawful, it means that the complainant has no remedy at all.
THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CONCILIATION COMMITTEE
The procedure adopted by the Conciliation Committee was this:- First, the secretary, Miss Valerie Allport, wrote to the Principal of the College telling him of the complaint. She met himand the members of the staff and discussed it with them. She saw Mr. Selvarajan and discussed it with him. She received a letter from him with his comments. She saw the representatives of the Inner London Education Authority and discussed the case with them. She put their answer to Mr. Selvarajan and invited him to make his representations in writing. He did so. She made reports of her interviews, and collected all the letters together, and prepared them in a file for a sub-committee.
Second: The sub-committee (Lady Seear and Mr. Thomas) met on 14th July 1971, and saw Mr. Selvarajan. They felt that there were several points which were adverse to the College. So their Secretary put the points to the Prinicpal and got his answer. They considered them and decided to seek a further meeting. On 11th October the sub-committee (Dr. Bayliss and Lady Seear) met the Principal of the College and a representative of the Inner London Education Authority. On13th October the full sub-committee (Mr. Thomas, Dr. Bayliss, Mr. Bery, Mr. Keating, Mr. T. Robert and Lady Seear) met and considered the case. They agreed to recommend to the Conciliation Committee that unlawful discrimination had occurred and that this should be a "starred case".
Third: The secretary reported the result to Mr. Selvarajan and the Inner London Education Authority. Thereupon the Authority asked for a further opportunity of being heard. This was granted. On 8th November 1971, the sub-committee heard them in full. Mr. Selvarajan also made representations in writing and orally. He produced statements of several witnesses on his own behalf. The sub-committee considered the case on five days, 24th, 26th November 1971, 8th, 22nd December 1971, and 26th January 1972. Finally the case came back to the full Conciliation Committee on 9th February 1972, when ten members were present. They then formed the opinion that unlawful discrimination had occurred. The secretary notified this finding to. all concerned.
Fourth: It then became the duty of the Conciliation Committee, under the Act, to "use their best endeavours by communication with the parties concerned, or otherwise, to secure a settlement of any difference between them, and when appropriate a satisfactory written assurance against repetition" - see section 15(3).
The secretary made approaches to this end, but they were rejected by the Inner London Education Authority outright. In a letter of 14th March 1972, the Education Officer wrote denying any discrimination. He said:
"…. They are not, therefore, able to accept this opinion or enter into the discussions proposed in your letter about a settlement and assurances: and they require that the matter be reported to the Race Relations Board for further investigation".
Fifth: Having failed to secure a settlement and assurances, the Conciliation Committee on 22nd March 1972, as the Act requires, made a report to that effect to the Race Relations Board - see section 15(5). This was a formal report stating simply that the Conciliation Committee had failed. But Dr. Bayliss, the Chairman, supplemented it by a confidential note setting out the matters which weighed with them:
"Ten years at Grade I with Mr. Selvarajan's qualifications needed some explanation. We never had any convincing explanation….
There are a series of inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the representatives of the College and the ILEA which created the impression that they would use whatever argument was convenient as a means of answering Mr. Selvarajnn's complaint….
The ILEA have pushed our opinion aside and this letter makes it clear that they want the Board to ignore it. The Committee believe that a major public authority should not be allowed to get away with such cavalier treatment of one of the Board's regional committees".
I must say that I sympathise with the Conciliation Committee. Here they were, a group of able men and women, holding positions of responsibility, giving their time and skill to the service of the community, without any remuneration. They had investigated the complaint over a period of nine months, from May 1971 to February 1972. They had had representations in writing and orally from all concerned. They had given each side a full opportunity of meeting everything that was said on the other side. They had heard oral evidence and received written statements. They had discussed the case at length between themselves. It must...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Koppen v Commissioner for Community Relations
- Non-Metallic Mineral Products Mfg Union v Ketua Pengarah Kesatuan Sekerja Malaysia
-
Bertoli v Malone
...1371, dicta of Watkins, L.J. applied. (5) R. v. Manchester Crown Ct., ex p. Taylor, [1988] 1 W.L.R. 705. (6) R. v. Race Relations Bd., [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1686; [1976] 1 All E.R. 12, dicta of Lord Denning applied. (7) Tournier v. National Provncl. & Union Bank of England, [1924] 1 K.B. 461; [19......
-
Llandovery Investments Ltd v Commissioner of Taxpayer Appeals
...that case, it was considered that the duty in question was too important to delegate. 25 InR v Race Relations Board ex parte Selvarajan [1975] 1 WLR 1686 [1975] 1 WLR 1686, Lord Denning in dealing with the question of the applicability of the maxim said at page 1695: ‘The maxim delegatus no......