Discrimination or not?

TheMonster

Does discrimation in the workplace extend to not providing services for one group over another?
I have recently discovered that gym membership is available in our company for married couples only. I haven't checked but assume other benefits are prob the same.

I didn't think this was permissable and would amount to discrimination. When I asked I was told this is thw way things have always been, that they didn't want everyone signing up their partner of a few months.

seamus

Is this a company gym, or an actual gym offering a corporate discount for dual memberships?

Big difference.

TheMonster

3rd party gym Seamus - full membership avalilble to married couples only

Kinetic^

TheMonster wrote:

3rd party gym Seamus - full membership avalilble to married couples only

That's a disgrace, that's a definate discrimintaion based on marital status.
Thats a 1st,i'd say that to your employer.

TheMonster

Have to agree - was shocked when told.(I kind of assumed it was available to all couples). BTW have checked its nothing to do with the gyms policy either.

WhiteWashMan

does your compny offer gym membership to you?

what other benefits do you assume are the same?



Keyser Soze, please reduce your signature. its an eyesore.

TheMonster

I can get gym membership and if I was married my wife could get it, however even though we have been living together and have a house for 5 years she can't avail of it now.

I think it probably applies to BUPA(not an issue as she has her own provided by her employer), can't think of any other, but the consensus seems to be we treat you differently if you are married.

seamus

TheMonster wrote:

3rd party gym Seamus - full membership avalilble to married couples only

Then it's probably a gym policy thing. Go and ask the gym itself. Your partner counts as a common law spouse, which may be good enough for them. It's actually quite reasonable that a company can specify that married couples may have more benefits than unmarried couples. Think about it, every time someone got a new girlfriend/boyfriend they'd be signing them up for everything, and then having to remove them when they broke up. Administrative nightmare. Though it's also reasonable to extend the same benefits to common law spouses. Many places do, they just don't specify it.

Can *you* get gym membership, as a single person? If not, then that's definite discrimination.

TheMonster

HI Seamus,
You prob just missed my last post. Its not gym policy but the companys policy the gym don't care(and will even take 2 friends), asking around earlier - the same applies to BUPA. They will give a cover a married couple cover for both but not an unmarried regardless of "commn law" status.

WhiteWashMan

what you didnt make clear was if could get gym member ship, only married couples.

what im thinking now is that your company is only willing to pay for employees, and their spouses, and not boy or girl friends.

personally, i think its tough luck, but i see no discrimination there. i think its a policy that the company has implemented.

common law status holds no legal power at all.

so in actual fact, you are just upset because your partner doesnt get any freebies out of your company, while someone else does.
is that it?

TheMonster

Yes, I can get it on my own.

I thought you couldn't discriminate based on "marital status" which is effectively what they are doing, but from what you saying "common law" has no status. What is "marital status" so?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA21Y1998.html

6.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, discrimination shall be taken to occur where, on any of the grounds in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as "the discriminatory grounds"), one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated.

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

(a) that one is a woman and the other is a man (in this Act referred to as "the gender ground"),
(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"),
(d) that they are of different sexual orientation (in this Act referred to as "the sexual orientation ground"),
(e) that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not (in this Act referred to as "the religion ground"),
(f) that they are of different ages, but subject to subsection (3) (in this Act referred to as "the age ground"),
(g) that one is a person with a disability and the other either is not or is a person with a different disability (in this Act referred to as "the disability ground"),
(h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (in this Act referred to as "the ground of race"),
(i) that one is a member of the traveller community and the other is not (in this Act referred to as "the traveller community ground").

8.—(1) In relation to—

(a) access to employment,
(b) conditions of employment,
(c) training or experience for or in relation to employment,
(d) promotion or re-grading, or
(e) classification of posts,
an employer shall not discriminate against an employee or prospective employee and a provider of agency work shall not discriminate against an agency worker.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, neither an employer nor a provider of agency work shall be taken to discriminate against an agency worker unless (on one of the discriminatory grounds) that agency worker is treated less favourably than another agency worker is, has been or would be treated.

(3) In subsections (4) to (8), references to an employee include references to an agency worker and, in relation to such a worker, references to the employer include references to the provider of agency work.

(4) A person who is an employer shall not, in relation to employees or employment—

(a) have rules or instructions which would result in discrimination against an employee or class of employees in relation to any of the matters specified in paragraphs (b) to (e) of subsection (1), or
(b) otherwise apply or operate a practice which results or would be likely to result in any such discrimination.
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), an employer shall be taken to discriminate against an employee or prospective employee in relation to access to employment if the employer discriminates against the employee or prospective employee—

(a) in any arrangements the employer makes for the purpose of deciding to whom employment should be offered, or
(b) by specifying, in respect of one person or class of persons, entry requirements for employment which are not specified in respect of other persons or classes of persons, where the circumstances in which both such persons or classes would be employed are not materially different.
(6) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), an employer shall be taken to discriminate against an employee or prospective employee in relation to conditions of employment if, on any of the discriminatory grounds, the employer does not offer or afford to that employee or prospective employee or to a class of persons of whom he or she is one—

(a) the same terms of employment (other than remuneration and pension rights),
(b) the same working conditions, and
(c) the same treatment in relation to overtime, shift work, short time, transfers, lay-offs, redundancies, dismissals and disciplinary measures,

based on these 2 above you can't discriminate "conditions of employment" based on "marital status"

ionapaul

Why is it discrimination? Married and unmarried couples are treated differently in law, why should your company treat common law partners the same as married ones?

edit: Surely the legislation quoted above relates solely to you (the employee) and your conditions of employment, rather than how your employer treats your partner? If they didn't give you gym membership because you were unmarried, wouldn't that be an example of them contravening the above?

seamus

TheMonster wrote:

Yes, I can get it on my own.

Well then.

I thought you couldn't discriminate based on "marital status" which is effectively what they are doing, but from what you saying "common law" has no status. What is "marital status" so?

But they're not. You have the same right to join the gym as a married person. A married person is someone who has signed a legal contract relating to marriage. You are not really being discriminated against. The gym is more than likely a benefit, and companies are very much allowed to assign different benefits to different people. Perhaps someone else can explain it better, but because two people are married, afaik it effectively means they can/should be treated as a single unit, as opposed to two separate people.

based on these 2 above you can't discriminate "conditions of employment" based on "marital status"

A "condition of employment" is something which you must do as an employee. So for example, they cannot state that you must give 4 weeks' notice to get holidays and a married man must only give 2 weeks, purely because he's married.

WhiteWashMan

see above.

your partern does not work for your company, and as such, is not being discriminated against.

nor are you being discriminated against based on your marital status.

BizzyC

It's not discrimination.

As Seamus pointed out, a married couple are legally tied to each other, and therfore are recognised differently by the government/law.

Since you're not married your partner is not seen to have any legal ties to the company, and therefore they dont need to offer them anything.

It would be the same as offering memberships to your friends from a legal standpoint.

Talliesin

As long as there is some form of membership available to you (but not necessarily your partner) then you aren't being prevented from enjoying the benefits of membership, and hence it wouldn't generally be considered discrimination.

Of course, there's plenty of discrimination in this country as to who can and cannot get married in the first place, and the whole area of partnership recognition is a mess, but that's not your employers fault.

TheMonster

Cheers all - that clarifies it. Wasn't clear on the exact meanings.

WhiteWashMan

no problem. but thats what i meant when i mentioned you were 'common law' but the fact that common law while it is recognised by the state, it actually means nothing.

it does not mean you get anything belonging to your partner if they die, (including any possession, house etc), there are no legal ties at all.

they are not recognised legally as part of your family.

onthe other hand, marriage is all legal, it does tie you to a person and it does mean that you need a divorce if you decide you dont like each other any more.

having said that, whether or not you can get ownership of a house if your partner dies, does not have any bearing on the fact that your company is under no obligation to give out member ship to your partner. actually, they are under no obligation to give out membership to any employees spouce either.
they have just decided, out of the goodness of their own heart, that if someone is married, then it would be nice to extend the offer of health, gym membership etc to the spouse.

you could claim that its a bit unfair, but its certainly not discrimination.

Hobbes

Some corporations deem "couples" as married. Normally to allow Same sex couples to get benifits as married people. You should check into it, there is a number of years where you are defined as a couple. I forget what it is.

Victor

I can see TheMonster's point, even if it initially came across the wrong way.

There is a subtle difference in TheMonster's conditions of employment (conditions work both ways) from those of other employee's. It is discrimination. If this gym membership is paid by the employer (as opposed to X gyms offers employees of Y companies a discount of Z), then married employees are a few hundred euros a year better off than unmarried ones. As to whether it is illegal discrimination or not, I don't know.

What if you approach the gym and aks if they will give you a deal?

If I were an employer, whether someone has a gym-partner or not is territory I wouldn't go into.

loyatemu

use of the term "common law spouse" is meaningless in ireland
some companies (eg car insurance) use the term to indicate "cohabiting partner" but it has no status in law - its a british thing that's not recognised in Ireland.

the gym thing does sound discriminatory but I can see where the company is coming from. i suppose they could allow unmarried partners access but make it clear that you are not allowed to change the nominated person within a certain time frame (a couple of years say)

PatPete

1. Just because that its the way its always been ( married only) should never deter you from seeking a change ( a good personnel department should be progressive but of course they never are, indeed the term 'dumbing down' seems to apply particularly well to these areas of corporate operations).

2. By the same token after 5 years why don't you confirm your mutual commitment to each other and make an honest person of your partner? that would solve your problem in this regard.

3. Notes (a). As a married person myself I was careful to say that point 2 will only solve your problem with regard to the gym membership.
(b). Most married people would tell the unmarried to get married - but that's because they remember how much fun it was before they married.
(c). As an old unmarried farmer once told my then fiancee - its not changing cars (or gyms) you should be at at your time of life- its changing nappies!

nesf

It could be that the gym itself offers a cheap deal for married partners and that the company is taking up on this offer.

They might not be able to avail of said offer for non-married partners, thus why they mightn't do it.

iirc that's legal.

jmiom

.... just found out that my employer won't cover my partner (I'm male, she's female) for the corporate Health Scheme (with BUPA), as we aren't married. However they will cover my son.

When initially interviewed, I was told that the scheme covered employees and dependents, I think the exact term was family, but the word dependents was definetely used. As she's not working does that not make her a dependent?

I am trying to find out if this is BUPA, or Corporate policy...

So, two questions really..

(assuming employer policy) Wouldn't this be unfair discrimation due to the fact that we are un-married?

Would I be able to refer to her as a dependent seeing I am the only wage earner?

Cheers

JM

seamus

jmiom wrote:

(assuming employer policy) Wouldn't this be unfair discrimation due to the fact that we are un-married?

Well, not really. Marraige is a legal term. For all intents and purposes, if you could get your co-habiting partner onto the scheme, then anyone could get their flatmate onto it too. How long would too people have to be going out before they could be considered the equivalent of married? And there is always the choice of getting married in order to avail of this (Bad reason to do it of course).

Would I be able to refer to her as a dependent seeing I am the only wage earner?

Well, there's a question I don't know the answer to. It's your most likely way to get her onto it, but I would advise having a look at the revenue and/or social welfare sites and finding out what their definition of a "dependent" is. I have a feeling it will relate to someone being under 23, studying and living permanently in your home.

LDB

For clarity, all policies that provide benefits to people in addition to the employee, whether it be gym or healthcare etc, should specify that they cover 'employees and co-habiting couples'. This means there is not bias against non married couples or same sex couples.
By using the term co-habiting, it goes some way to preventing a short term boyfriend/girlfriend from getting cover.

There was a case a few years back where a company provided cheap insurance for employees and their husbands/wife’s if they were married. A non married couple were denied access to the cheaper insurance. When they contested it, the Equality authority deemed the company to be discriminating.

jmiom

cheers, the other reason to get married, I think I'll be able to clear (net) an extra 300 euro per month (as she's not working)...

So, wedding = €45000, APR of 10%(ish), repayments (of the increase in net income) 300, so I'd be paying for it until my great grandchildren die.....

OK, it can be done for less, but what's the average wedding cost in ireland these days? (what's an "average" wedding?)

I suppose we'll do it one day..

But as a wise man once said... "Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free...."

jmiom

Have you any more details of that case? Re: Insurance?

LDB

Today 14:26
jmiom Have you any more details of that case? Re: Insurance?


No I'm sorry, I can't recall the exact details on the case but you could look up the equality tribual site and read decisions under marital status to see if there is anything similar.