Discrimination Protection For All

One of the most high profile employment tribunal claims in sport ended last week in London, when international cricket umpire Darrell Hair withdrew his claim of race discrimination against the International Cricket Council (ICC).

Mr Hair, a white Australian, was co-umpiring a test match between England and Pakistan with Billy Doctrove, a black West Indian, in August 2006. Both umpires penalised Pakistan for tampering with the ball and then awarded the match to England when the visiting team refused to resume play following a tea interval.

The crux of Mr Hair’s claim was that, whilst he was barred by the ICC from officiating test matches, Mr Doctrove was not.

Mr Hair stated that the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) ‘unlawfully induced’ the ICC to engage in discriminatory acts by lobbying for his ban prior to a meeting. The PCB and ICC have vigorously denied such claims, instead arguing that Mr Hair was the senior umpire during the infamous match and took charge, resulting in his display of poor judgement which caused the ICC board to lose confidence in him.

But what are the wider implications of this case?

Since Mr Hair’s case collapsed after more than a week of evidence at the Tribunal, there is obviously no definitive Tribunal ruling to consider.

However, it is an important reminder that race discrimination legislation is in place to protect all employees, not just those of an ethnic minority background. If an employee finds themselves being treated less favourably than a colleague on the grounds of race, ethnic or national origins, this could give rise to a potential race discrimination claim, as in Mr Hair’s situation. In such circumstances it is essential that the employee raises a grievance immediately, and that the employer realises the potential implications and deals with the matter immediately.

There is a distinct possibility, though, that the ICC hasn’t heard the last of Mr Hair just yet. Following the collapse of the tribunal claim, Mr Hair’s solicitor said his client was looking forward to returning to umpiring top cricket matches. However, it is understood that no financial pay-off was made to Mr Hair and that his return to top-flight umpiring was not guaranteed. Mr Hair’s contract expires in March 2008 and the chief executive of the ICC has suggested a decision will be made in six months time about Mr Hair’s ability to officiate at an elite level again.

It could be the case that Mr Hair will have an argument of victimisation, if he is denied the opportunity to umpire elite matches solely as a result of bringing this original claim. And that could be the beginnings of a new tribunal claim for the ICC to deal with……

Published 10/10/2007.