Is this discrimination?

inquisitor2001

Does anyone know, if, all other things being equal, a particular team member is told they do not have to travel with work because they have kids, whereas others are expected to travel, is discrimination?

NB those other people do not have kids but no questions were asked about other responsibilities they may have at home. The person is not a lone parent.

Thanks all!

Nody

What does your contract say? If if has travel may be required or similar you're out of luck.

Ray Palmer

By the law it is not discrimination. Companies should be wary of such polices if there is not an equivalent time available for other personal choices.

Some companies are beginning to realise it is unfair to do such things. They now give everybody personal time allowances.

There are some places where you have to pay money into widow/er and orphans fund and people with neither a partner or kids have to pay in.

If you can mention it to the HR department but it really depends on the company.

I have worked in company where I was expected to cover all out of hours support as I had no kids and lived closer than others. After a year they agreed it was unfair and started paying for people to do it and suddenly I never got to do it again. :rolleyes:

inquisitor2001

Nody wrote: »

What does your contract say? If if has travel may be required or similar you're out of luck.

No, it doesn't, but it would not really have come up before as most of our clients would be local.

I don't want to rock the boat, but the fact that this person on the team "can't" travel means that they do not have any input into the project which leaves the rest of us with extra workloads. Plus the fact that I would still have personal responsibilities outside of work hours, but just because they don't involve children they somehow don't count and are not even asked about.

I am wondering if there is discrimination here. As I said "all other things being equal" so assume our contracts are the same.

inquisitor2001

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Some companies are beginning to realise it is unfair to do such things. They now give everybody personal time allowances.

Indeed, "personal time allowances" such as time to pick up kids from school, time to go to the doctor, all within working hours are reasonable.

But when the travel is over a couple of days or sometimes even a week, that is personal time outside working hours that is affected.

Nody

inquisitor2001 wrote: »

I am wondering if there is discrimination here. As I said "all other things being equal" so assume our contracts are the same.

Is it discrimination? Yes. Can you legally do anything about it? Nope. Replace the above case with said person getting 5k more a year then you and your collegues and you'd stand in the same situation of it being legally compliant (as long as it's not based on the big 7).

garhjw

If its not convenient for you to travel due to other commitments outside work hours, let your manager know the situation.

I travel regularly as part of my job and that is stated in my contract. However, there are times when I am unable to travel due to other commitments. My manager always understands.

Do you think your manager will react I a easonable manner?

inquisitor2001

garhjw wrote: »

If its not convenient for you to travel due to other commitments outside work hours, let your manager know the situation.

I travel regularly as part of my job and that is stated in my contract. However, there are times when I am unable to travel due to other commitments. My manager always understands.

Do you think your manager will react I a easonable manner?

I can travel sometimes - I would not just say flat out that I can never travel - but should it not be the same for the team member with kids?

irelandrover

Nody wrote: »

Is it discrimination? Yes. Can you legally do anything about it? Nope. Replace the above case with said person getting 5k more a year then you and your collegues and you'd stand in the same situation of it being legally compliant (as long as it's not based on the big 7).

Is this not discrimination based on family status? So legally it is discrimination. As long as travel is mentioned in noone's contract.

Irish_Elect_Eng

Manager just cannot win can they :-)

The manager in this case seems to be making an allowance for an employee with family commitments, which seems laudable. While another staff member has a problem with this allowance, I wonder have they actually raised the issue of not wanting to travel with their manager. It sees that they want the benefit taken away from the other employee rather than address their own case with their manager.

Not discrimination on this evidence, just a manager trying to offer some work-life balance to an employee.

Ray Palmer

Irish_Elect_Eng wrote: »

Manager just cannot win can they :-)



Not discrimination on this evidence, just a manager trying to offer some work-life balance to an employee.

To one employee and sacrificing other peoples' personal time in order to do it and these people don't have a choice.

Companies have fallen foul of such policies in the past. I worked in a company where they gave a bonus based on attendance it was challenged by a guy who had chronic back problems. He could never get the bonus as he would miss time on occasion.

You should balance out any benefits so they are accessible to everybody.

inquisitor2001

Irish_Elect_Eng wrote: »

Manager just cannot win can they :-)

The manager in this case seems to be making an allowance for an employee with family commitments, which seems laudable. While another staff member has a problem with this allowance, I wonder have they actually raised the issue of not wanting to travel with their manager. It sees that they want the benefit taken away from the other employee rather than address their own case with their manager.

Not discrimination on this evidence, just a manager trying to offer some work-life balance to an employee.

That's an interesting insight. Maybe there is an element of that on my side. What about the male members of the team (not me) who have kids who have not been given the same allowance?

And back to the original point - all other things being equal, is it discrimination, I don't think you answered that as you say "the manager is trying to offer some work-life balance to an employee".

tatli_lokma

Technically, I think you could argue that it is discriminatory to give special provisions to one staff member at the expense of others:

citizensinformation.ie wrote:

What is discrimination?
Discrimination is defined as less favourable treatment. An employee is said to be discriminated against if he/she is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the above 9 grounds. To establish direct discrimination, a direct comparison must be made, for example, in the case of disability discrimination the comparison must be between a person who has a disability and another who has not, or between persons with different disabilities.

Indirect discrimination occurs when practices or policies that do not appear to discriminate against one group more than another actually have a discriminatory impact. It can also happen where a requirement that may appear non-discriminatory adversely affects a particular group or class of persons.

However, I agree with Irish_Elec_Eng that how you approach this needs to be carefully weighed. Ideally, what you want is for a new policy which is agreeable to all staff - you and people with committments which make travelling difficult. You need to make sure this is understood, rather than give the idea as mentioned that you want them to lose the benefit entirely.

tatli_lokma

Nody wrote: »

(as long as it's not based on the big 9).

FYP - its 9 grounds, not 7!

Mrs OBumble

inquisitor2001 wrote: »

What about the male members of the team (not me) who have kids who have not been given the same allowance?

And back to the original point - all other things being equal, is it discrimination, I don't think you answered that as you say "the manager is trying to offer some work-life balance to an employee".

Indeed. And what about the team members who have elder-care responsibilities. Or committments to community groups (sports coaching or music teaching of other people's kids, shifts with organisations like childline or Samaritans or training with the coastguard). Etc.

OP, I believe that it is discrimination.

The question is - what do you want to do about it. You could take a case, it would be hugely intersting and have big legal bills. You might get some cash - but you'll have poisoned your current employment relationship. Or you might lose on a legal technicality.

Think very hard about what you want to happen here.

Ray Palmer

inquisitor2001 wrote: »

That's an interesting insight. Maybe there is an element of that on my side. What about the male members of the team (not me) who have kids who have not been given the same allowance?

And back to the original point - all other things being equal, is it discrimination, I don't think you answered that as you say "the manager is trying to offer some work-life balance to an employee".

If you are saying they give it to a woman and not a man who both have children then yes it is discrimination. I had assumed it was just one person had a child. Very different if only one person who is female is given an allowance while a man in the same situation is not.

How do managers not realise this is beyond me as it is fundamental stuff.

Bandana boy

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Indeed. And what about the team members who have elder-care responsibilities. Or committments to community groups (sports coaching or music teaching of other people's kids, shifts with organisations like childline or Samaritans or training with the coastguard). Etc.

OP, I believe that it is discrimination.

The question is - what do you want to do about it. You could take a case, it would be hugely intersting and have big legal bills. You might get some cash - but you'll have poisoned your current employment relationship. Or you might lose on a legal technicality.

Think very hard about what you want to happen here.

Not sure this is even discrimination ,this person could have negotiated this as part of their contract or asked for special consideration which no other team member has asked for and the company has not been given a chance to accommodate another member of the team .

That said the company will talk themselves out of this very quickly unless somebody actually asks for equitable treatment and has been refused.

If this is not in her contract then the reality is that once this issue is raised the person who is been accommodated for will no longer be accommodated for. Hence levelling up the playing field and removing any case for discrimination.

In short ,you will be very unlikely to get equitable treatment ,or give yourself grounds to sue on discrimination but you have a very good chance of making things very difficult for your colleague

Bandana boy

Ray Palmer wrote: »

If you are saying they give it to a woman and not a man who both have children then yes it is discrimination. I had assumed it was just one person had a child. Very different if only one person who is female is given an allowance while a man in the same situation is not.

How do managers not realise this is beyond me as it is fundamental stuff.

Only if the decision has been made on gender reasons and is sytematic.
Are all Female employees with children not required to travel ,does this change if a female employee has a child.
The OP has given one example of one person in the company who works differntly to the balance of the team this might be in their contract.This might have been negotiated by the employee.There could be several factors outside the OP's knowledge that the company are accomodating a member of staff with sick child ,going through a divorce etc. Companies are allowed to do this and helping one member of the team does not immeadiately open the contract with other employees to be re-negotiated or imbue discrimination.

Ray Palmer

Bandana boy wrote: »

Only if the decision has been made on gender reasons and is sytematic.
.

Actually the perception of discrimination can be enough in the same way bullying works. So the observer perception is enough. It is a delicate situation employers have to be aware of. It doesn't need to be systematic one act based on discrimination is plenty

Mrs OBumble

Also, remember that not all discrimination is illegal.

Disrimination on the grounds of the Big Nine is.

But being discriminating on the basis of other factors is often a good thing.

Ray Palmer

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

But being discriminating on the basis of other factors is often a good thing.

What discrimination is a good thing? It sounds like you might mean something else because discrimination by it's definition would always be a bad thing AFAIK.

the_syco

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

But being discriminating on the basis of other factors is often a good thing.

Positive discrimination is often a good thing for the woman, but usually bad for the man.

Mrs OBumble

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What discrimination is a good thing? It sounds like you might mean something else because discrimination by it's definition would always be a bad thing AFAIK.

Qualifications, skiils expereince - surely expect to hire someone with the knowledge and skills needed to do the job.

Looks and personal hygiene - surely you wouldn't hire a receptionist who was short, fat and ugly? (perfectly legal, provided the issues aren't due to a disabillity)

Physical fitness - would you expect a gym to hire a fat slob?

Attitude - do you hire the guy who says "I love working in XXX and want to progress my career" or the one who says "I work to make money, will do a full days work, by at 5:01pm I'm out of here".

Ray Palmer

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Qualifications, skiils expereince - surely expect to hire someone with the knowledge and skills needed to do the job.

Looks and personal hygiene - surely you wouldn't hire a receptionist who was short, fat and ugly? (perfectly legal, provided the issues aren't due to a disabillity)

Physical fitness - would you expect a gym to hire a fat slob?

Attitude - do you hire the guy who says "I love working in XXX and want to progress my career" or the one who says "I work to make money, will do a full days work, by at 5:01pm I'm out of here".

That isn't discrimination hence me saying you might be thinking of something else.

There is a minor one that is a little debatable about somebody being fat.

the_syco

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Qualifications, skiils expereince
Looks and personal hygiene
Physical fitness
Attitude

That not positive discrimination. Positive discrimination is when you're picked because you're a woman, and this is considered "good".

Eoin

"Positive Discrimination" is a specific term, which is not necessarily the same as making a decision on skills or experience.

Discrimination has a few definitions - one of which is unfairly judging someone based on their membership of a group. Another one is simply telling one thing from another.

The word usually has a negative connotation, so it's simpler not to use it when you're talking about making a decision on entirely sensible, reasonable (and legally OK) factors.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

This IS discrimination, on the grounds of family status. You and other workers are being discriminated against on the basis that you do not have kids etc. See s.6 of the employment equality acts -

s.6(1)"For the purposes of this Act and without prejudice to its provisions relating to discrimination occurring in particular circumstances discrimination shall be taken to occur where—

(a) a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which—

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,

(iii) may exist in the future, or

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned, (this means if your employer thinks you are gay and discriminates on the basis of this it is still discrimination even if you are not in fact gay)

(2) As between any 2 persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are—

...

(b) that they are of different marital status (in this Act referred to as “the marital status ground”),

(c) that one has family status and the other does not (in this Act referred to as “the family status ground”),

This is not indirect discrimination as there are different rules being applied to different people here.

Positive action is allowed for by ss. 24(1) and 33 of the acts. Positive action allows employers to adopt measures a) to make it easier for an under-represented sex to pursue a vocational activity, and b) to prevent or compensate for particular disadvantages in the professional world associated with a characteristic or characteristics, mentioned in s.6(2) of the Acts, with the objective of combating occupational segregation.

However, it is important to note that employers cannot guarantee unconditional and absolute priority for appointment/promotion/different treatment. Positive action must be proportionate and take individual qualities of relevant employees into account, as held in Kalanke v Freie Hansestadt Bremen.

This is not positive action, unless your employer can prove that the nature of the field you work in (IT/engineering/whatever) causes most people with kids to be unable to work in that field.


Ask your employer to review the situation as you think it's unfair as you and others have commitments outside of work. Send a letter/an email, something that you can have a record of.
If nothing is done complain to the equality tribunal and you and others may be compensated and the situation rectified.

While I can see how the manager might just be trying to help the person who has kids, that's no excuse for others having to do extra work etc. and it's not as if someone cannot leave the country just because they have kids.