Historically, the contract manned guarding industry has been – and still is – extremely vulnerable to charges of inequality in the workforce. With new legislation on the horizon, though, it's more important than ever before that security companies get to grips with this thorny issue. As David Evans suggests, a strategy for change should be based around the Commission for Racial Equality's latest set of benchmarks.
In the past few years, the guarding industry has seen a dramatic growth in its employment tribunal cases as employment law has been interpreted and explained, and liability has been clarified through tribunal case decisions. Compensation levels have escalated as the extent of the social changes at work brought about by this new regime have become all-too-clear.

Cynics would say that these laws were making things more difficult for business while enriching lawyers and some employees or ex-employees. They would argue that, because of the cost of litigation to the respondent, the scales of justice favour the applicant who is not risking cost. Certainly, anecdotal evidence – and that is the only evidence we have, because no statistics are collated – suggests that many cases are settled before hearings commence as employers seek to minimise the potential costs to themselves.

As both industry and the tribunal system grapple with the complexity of interpreting employment legislation, further legislation on a host of equality issues is on its way because Europe and the Government have judged that employers – both public and private – have not taken the issue of equality in employment seriously enough.

The guarding industry is particularly vulnerable to charges of inequality. We source, train and supervise labour at our customers' behest and, if we're not careful, personal specifications can lead us to select staff on the basis of inequality.

The industry associations have not taken a lead in attempting to understand the present situation, and have failed to offer guidance aimed at improving equality of opportunity for all. In other words, they haven't prepared their members for the new legislation. This is particularly disappointing given the fact that our industry is a major employer of staff from an ethnic background.

The Race Relations Act 1976
At present, we're all governed by the Race Relations Act of 1976, an Act which makes racial discrimination unlawful in employment and training (as well as in housing, education and the provision of goods, facilities and services). People may be directly or indirectly discriminated against if they are treated less favourably than others on racial grounds. That is, on grounds of race, colour, nationality, citizenship and ethnic or national origin.

Ultimately, an employer is liable for any acts of discrimination committed at work by its employees. Businesses respond by issuing a company policy on race relations. In the majority of security companies, that is that. No effort is put into ensuring that racial equality is actually happening. Few companies monitor what is happening in their workplaces, or gather statistics on the ethnic make-up of their workforce. As a result, the majority of companies don't know if their policy is working or not.

The occasional tender from a local authority will ask: "How many staff from an ethnic background do you employ?" and add the telling: "How many persons employed in your company from an ethnic background are supervisors, managers or directors?"

Completing tenders with questions like these often relies on optimistic 'guesstimates'.

Stating the case for equality
There are three main considerations involved when looking at the case for equality: morality, commercial self-interest and to meet/pre-empt legislation.

The moral argument should be clear to companies whose business practices are based on integrity and a Duty of Care towards their employees. Unfortunately, the Boards of the majority of such companies assume that equality runs the length and breadth of their organisation when in actual fact it doesn't.

At the end of the day, policies on equality need to be driven from the very top. In line with this, the publication of the MacPherson report in February 1999 into the police handling of the Stephen Lawrence murder inquiry introduced the concept of institutional racism to a much wider audience.

What of commercial self-interest? Equality of opportunity makes business sense. The generally poor representation of the ethnic members of the guarding workforce in supervision or management could well mean that contractors are ignoring talent in their companies. And we all know how difficult it is to attract real talent into this industry.

My own research has revealed one commonality so far as the ethnic element of the workforce is concerned: there is a lack of opportunity for them to progress.

In the United States, one guarding company appears to have understood the need for equality of opportunity, and has benefited commercially from that understanding. That company is Guardsmark, employer of over 16,000 security officers and boasting an average growth rate in revenues and profit of 12%, staff turnovers of 25% and an excellent customer retention level of 92%.

Guardsmark introduced its Equal Opportunities Policy in 1965, its Code of Ethics in 1980, its own Sexual Harrassment Policy in 1982 and its Ethnic, Racial and Religious Slur Policy in 1988. As a result, 24% of the management team is from the minorities, and 24% are female.

'Getting it wrong' can be expensive. In the year 2000, 316 cases of discrimination were brought before tribunals, paying out £3.5 million in compensation. This figure doesn't include the £1.2 million paid by the Metropolitan Police to Sergeant Gurpal Singh Virdi, whose case set a record for 'injured feelings'. Indeed, injury to feelings accounted for 43% of the total costs paid out by tribunals.

It's worth remembering that awards are payable even if there was no reason to suppose that someone's feelings would be injured.

The year 2000 figures represented a 38% increase on the previous year. The largest award that year for a sex discrimination case resulted in the old Centuryan Security Services company paying £80,400, which included a component for hurt feelings. In another case, Granada Hospitality paid £195,000 to a former employee for having refused to supply a reference after the employee won a sex discrimination case. The highest award for disability discrimination that year was £79,200 – paid by Waltham Forest Council for failing to adapt the workplace to accommodate an employee's wheelchair.

These awards are really the tip of the iceberg, as no records are kept of the out-of-court settlements. Many in the security industry know these settlements only too well, as a balance has to be drawn between the cost of settling and the cost of defending.

Any failure to exhibit and believe in true equality in a company will have an increasing opportunity cost as customers themselves begin to source from equality-driven suppliers.

Any failure to exhibit and believe in true equality in a company will have an increasing opportunity cost as customers themselves begin to source from equality-driven security suppliers

Pre-empting the legislation
The pace of progress towards racial equality – and thus equal opportunity – has been accelerated by the strengthening of the Race Relations Act 1976 courtesy of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. For the first time, this Act imposes a general duty on public authorities to promote racial equality.

In essence, there are four different types of specific duties, as follows:

  • named authorities must have published (by 31 May 2002) a Racial Equality Scheme showing how they intend to fulfil the general duty, as well as any other specific duty to which they're subjected;
  • by the same date, named educational bodies must have prepared a statement outlining – and putting arrangements in place for – measures fulfilling the duties to assess and monitor the impact of their policies on different racial groups, and to fulfil those duties;
  • other named authorities have to put in place arrangements for fulfilling duties to monitor – by reference to racial groups – various aspects of education and employment at 'educational establishments', and to fulfil those duties;
  • other named authorities and persons must have in place – again by 31 May this year – arrangements for fulfilling duties to monitor (by reference to racial groups) various aspects of their employment, and to fulfil those duties.

Pretty dry stuff, and yet all of this represents a fundamental change which will, in time, impact upon each and every guarding business. This Act covers a significant proportion of persons employed in this country (those working in the public sector) and ALL potential employees (all those in education).

Virtually all local and other public authorities will require that their outsourced service providers – that is to say the manned security companies – meet the provisions of the Act to back up their own results.

Racial equality factors are likely to become an assessment factor in future tenders. In the West Midlands this is already the case, with Birmingham, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Walsall, Redditch and Sandwell Councils combining to form the West Midlands Forum – the aim being to ensure that their service providers fulfil their current legal obligations under the terms of the Race Relations Act 1976.

At some point, it's likely that the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 will also be applied to industry as a whole.

Bear in mind, too, the fact that discrimination legislation and sanctions apply – and will apply – not only to actions against employers, but to job applicants, 'workers' and contractors. There are no restrictions on the length of employment before an employee can bring a complaint of racial discrimination.

Dismissals for these reasons are (virtually) automatically 'unfair'.

Rising to the challenge
The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) has recognised the difficulty industry faces in developing strategies for change. To assist guarding companies in their efforts, the organisation has developed a standard – the 'Standard for Racial Equality for Employers' – which links the good employment practise laid down in legislation with employers' broader business strategies.

The CRE standard doesn't enjoy legal status. It is designed purely to enable employers to assess their current position and introduce the processes and procedures necessary to achieve equality of treatment and opportunity in employment. The standard is not a kitemark standard, nor is it a regulated standard. Companies adopting it can work to the pace and level that suits them.

In addition, the cost of achieving the standard is that of the company's own internal work which it deems necessary or worthwhile.

The standard is adaptable and, as part of the same process, security companies may introduce matching procedures concerning disability, sex, religion and age. It sits comfortably with Investors in People and the Management Charter Initiative, as well as standards belonging to other lead bodies.

Using the CRE standard
The standard covers six areas where security companies might apply and use an anti-discriminatory programme. These are: policy and planning, selection, developing and retaining staff, communication and corporate image, corporate citizenship and auditing. Each of the six areas has five separate levels.

Flexibility is the byword for this standard.

For instance, a company might find that in certain areas it has already achieved the results expected, say, at Level 4, without having to take all the preceding steps in Levels 1-3. The company will then have to consider whether it needs to take these steps – or others – in order to improve or consolidate its achievements.

Companies may also find that, in order to identify priorities or make better progress, it's a touch more appropriate that some of the 'auditing' points listed at one level be undertaken at an earlier stage.

Make no mistake – using this standard is not simply a matter of 'ticking boxes' to show that this or that action has been taken, but is more one of checking whether the action taken had the desired result.

The CRE's 'Standard for Racial Equality for Employers' is backed by the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress, as well as a number of leading companies. Copies cost a meagre £10.

A commitment from above
Commitment to racial equality is what's required, and this must come from the upper echelons of any organisation.

Legion Security is publicly committed to achieving the standards laid down by the CRE. The timescale we have set ourselves is to achieve a new level each year. If we can achieve Level 3 of the standard, we will have gone a long way towards ensuring that we can truly demonstrate equal opportunities for all.