Whether you're interested in the smaller business community, are planning to start a business or have an existing business, we have a package for you.
Our most popular package is FSB Business Essentials which includes a whole range of benefits and products designed to make your business fly
A suite of legal benefits including a dedicated helpline, bundled insurance products and a range of online information to keep your business safe. Plus a whole range of negotiated benefits to help save you money and win business.
Our Business Creation package is designed to make starting a business simpler, allowing you time to focus on what's important - making it a success.
Specialist company formation benefits, access to FSB networking, business banking and a range of products to help get you setup in business.
Whatever your circumstances, we have a package to suit you and your business. Click the button below to see which benefits are included in each package and start your FSB journey.
'I just felt wow, I want to be part of this organisation so I joined.'
'Having someone there like the FSB who you can just call on for those other things you’re not quite sure on, it’s been invaluable.'
'What you can save by taking up some of the membership offers will save you your membership fee.'
We represent a diverse range of businesses from retailers to marketing agencies and just about everything in between. Take a look at more member stories and see how we could help your business fly.
More Member Stories
We offer three packages to suit your business needs. Joining FSB Connect is free, our Business Essentials package starts at £177 in the first year and our specialist Business Creation package has a fixed price of £133.
New rulings mean small firms relying on tests to assess potential new recruits need to be able to justify their use if they are to avoid discrimination claims, says Raphael Prais
Do you include a test with your recruitment and promotion procedures?
If so, you may be interested in two judgments (April and May 2017) from the Supreme Court and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). In brief:
1 Essop v Home Office (Supreme Court). If statistics show that people with a particular protected characteristic perform badly in a specific test, the employee does not have to show why the test has that effect in order to show indirect discrimination. That said, the employer may be able to justify its use of the test if it is a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim.
2 The Government Legal Service v Brookes (EAT). The claimant had Asperger’s syndrome, which affected her ability to pass the situational judgment test. The tribunal accepted the claimant’s evidence on the effect of the disability, and found that it was disproportionate, therefore unjustified, and therefore unlawful.
I’ll start by summarising the structure of an indirect discrimination claim:
The employer has a ‘provision, criterion or practice’ (PCP) that applies to all employees. PCP is quite a broad term and refers to most ways of doing things practised by the business.
The claimant has a ‘protected characteristic’, and the PCP puts employees with that characteristic at a disadvantage compared with others. Eight protected characteristics are named in the Equality Act 2010: for example, ethnicity and disability.
The employee in question is disadvantaged in that way.
The employer is unable to justify the PCP as being a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’.
Essop focused on the second and third requirements above. In particular, the question was whether:
A. If statistics show that employees with the claimant’s characteristic are less successful at the test, have those requirements been made out?
B. Or, having relied on statistics in that manner, does the employee still have to show why the PCP has that effect on this employee?
You might ask, how can the third criterion possibly be satisfied if they only rely on statistics?
The judgment replies: “This will largely depend upon how one defines the particular disadvantage in question. If the disadvantage is that more BME or older candidates fail the test than do white or younger candidates, then failure is the disadvantage and a claimant who fails has suffered that disadvantage.”
One might counter that the employee who fails the test isn’t disadvantaged because so many other people in the group fail, but because he or she has failed the test. However, the further point made by the Supreme Court is that we might not know why a particular group does worse in these tests. Indirect discrimination deals with hidden barriers that are not easy to spot.
1 Employers might still rebut the statistical conclusion. If a candidate didn’t show up for the test, the employer would succeed in arguing that the absence was the actual reason for the failure.
2 If the employer assessed the need for the test rigorously and impartially and it assesses essential skills or knowledge, the employer may succeed in justifying the PCP.
The Government Legal Service v Brookes concerned an employee with Asperger’s who failed the GLS’s situational judgment test.
To justify the test, the employer had to show that it served a legitimate aim and was a proportionate way of achieving it.
The employment tribunal accepted that the employer had a legitimate aim – to assess applicants’ competency. However, it concluded that the test was not a proportionate way of achieving it. The Employment Appeal Tribunal did not disagree.
To conclude, if you have good reasons for using tests in your recruitment and promotion procedures, then you don’t need to stop using them.
However, you should think about the tests used, be able to justify them and be prepared to make adjustments for disabled employees.
A wealth of important information and advice, available online in-case you face dismissal or discrimination claims and employment tribunals.
Don’t let late payments give you sleepless nights
GDPR one year on
Card Fraud: How Do I Protect My Business?