Barts Health Equality and Human Rights Impact Assessment Report

www.brap.org.uk3.4.2 DisabilityIt is difficult to reach meaningful conclusions about the number of disabled employees facingdisciplinaries given small sample sizes and the number of people not declaring theirdisability status. Purely for the sake of reference, then, absolute figures are presented below.Figure 3.4.2: Disciplinaries by disability (all Trusts)Disabled Not disabled Not knownNo % No % No %TotalBarts and theLondon2 1 84 40 124 59 210Newham 1 3 14 74 15 50 30Whipps Cross 0 0 28 100 0 0 283.4.3 EthnicityThe three Trusts used a variety of different ethnic categories to analyse the profile of peopleon disciplinaries (see tables 2.4.3a, b, and c in appendix B). Below, we present the datausing the broadest categories that were provided.The number of disciplinaries at Barts and the London and Whipps Cross appear broadlyconsistent with their respective Trust profiles, although – as Whipps Cross observe in theirWorkforce Report August 2011 – the “pattern is consistent with BME staff being more likelyto be the subject of disciplinary procedures.” Within Newham, Asian and White staff appearless likely to be subject to a disciplinary, while Black staff are significantly more likelycompared with their profile within the Trust.Figure 3.4.3a: Disciplinaries by ethnicty (Barts and the London)Cases by ethnicityTrust profile56