In a landmark case that has captured the attention of labor rights advocates across the United Kingdom, a group of Royal Parks workers challenged the legality of their outsourced contracts, arguing that the practice amounted to indirect race discrimination. This case, heard at the Court of Appeal, sheds light on the disparities between the pay and conditions of in-house staff versus outsourced workers within the same organization.
The case was brought forward by cleaners and attendants working in some of London’s most iconic parks, including Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. Managed by the Royal Parks charity, these workers found themselves on the sharp end of a pay discrepancy that seemed to mirror racial lines. While the charity’s predominantly white in-house staff were paid at least the London Living Wage, the outsourced cleaners, predominantly from black and ethnic minority backgrounds, received only the national minimum wage until their strike action in 2019.
The United Voices of the World union (UVW), representing the workers, argued that the outsourcing model used by Royal Parks indirectly discriminated against the workers based on race. Their victory at an employment tribunal in 2021 marked a significant moment, establishing that the charity’s policy to pay outsourced workers less was discriminatory. However, this decision was later overturned at an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), leading to the case’s escalation to the Court of Appeal.
The implications of this case extend far beyond the Royal Parks, potentially affecting the 3.3 million outsourced workers across the UK. A victory could challenge the outsourcing model’s viability, pushing towards a more equitable redistribution of wealth to low-paid, subcontracted, and precarious workers. This case is a stark reminder of the ongoing struggle for fair pay and equality in the workplace, highlighting the legal system’s role in addressing systemic injustices.
The case’s outcome could set a precedent for future disputes regarding outsourcing and indirect discrimination, emphasizing the need for organizations to reassess their employment practices to ensure they do not inadvertently perpetuate discrimination. It also underscores the importance of collective action and union representation in advocating for workers’ rights and bringing about meaningful change in employment law and practice.