Description
An employment tribunal has grappled with whether an employer’s failure to provide suitable facilities to allow a mother to express breast milk on her return to work amounted to sex-related harassment. Listen along to find out what happened!
Hosted by Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today in the Lefevre HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing a recent ruling by an employment tribunal in the case of Gibbons and Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board. While employment tribunal decisions are not binding in future cases, it is always useful to understand what a tribunal's view was on a given subject. In this case, prior to returning from maternity leave, a healthcare support worker in a hospital told her employer that her plan was to continue breastfeeding when she returned to work. and so as to maintain her privacy, she would like a lockable room in which to express. During these conversations, the hospital indicated that it would install a lock on the door of a suitable room before the healthcare worker returned, but this was not done. Instead, the healthcare worker was given a sign to put on the door and, as there was no lock, told to put a chair against the door so nobody could come in. The healthcare worker was unhappy with this arrangement, finding it to be both undignified and a fire risk. During expressing, there were a number of intrusions and the healthcare worker was signed off sick with stress and anxiety. She raised a grievance, and the hospital apologised, and once again agreed that the healthcare worker, who was now on a second period of maternity leave, would have a lockable room available on her return. On her second return, the healthcare worker was given access to a room with a lock, but only at certain times. She believed this impacted her ability to successfully breastfeed, left her at risk of becoming unwell, and made her feel as though she was a burden. The healthcare worker subsequently brought various claims against her employer. An employment tribunal found that the failure to provide an internally lockable room was unwanted conduct related to the healthcare worker's sex and, while not intentional, it had the effect of violating her dignity and the hospital could have done more to make sure the lock was fitted before the healthcare worker's return. The tribunal noted that it is important that a mother feel secure and relaxed when expressing and the absence of the lock left the healthcare worker anxious about the risk of people walking in. She also felt belittled by the lock not being provided, her needs not being met and by her ongoing resulting vulnerability that could leave her exposed or not being able to express effectively. In respect of the return from the second period of maternity leave, a lockable room had been promised in the return to work plan and the failure to then provide this had the effect of creating a humiliating environment for the healthcare worker. where she again felt unsupported and at risk of being walked in on. The tribunal also found it was objectively reasonable for her to feel this way, particularly as she had been promised a lockable room as part of the grievance outcome process. While it acknowledged that there were issues for the hospital, namely that the ward on which the healthcare worker worked did not have a suitable room, this potential problem should have been spotted at an earlier stage, allowing time for it to be resolved. In light of its findings, The Employment Tribunal upheld the healthcare worker's complaint of harassment related to sex in respect of her return from the second period of maternity leave. However, her complaint in respect of the first return to work was out of time and therefore its merit could not be considered by the Tribunal. This decision, although non-binding, indicates a willingness by tribunals to uphold a complaint of sex-related harassment, where an employer has failed to properly make provision for employees who wish to express milk on returning from maternity leave. In order to avoid potential pitfalls, employers would be wise to engage meaningfully with any employee who asks them to accommodate a wish to express milk on their return to work. and should take steps to provide a suitable room in advance of the employee's return so that any problems can be identified in good time. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Description
An employment tribunal has grappled with whether an employer’s failure to provide suitable facilities to allow a mother to express breast milk on her return to work amounted to sex-related harassment. Listen along to find out what happened!
Hosted by Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today in the Lefevre HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing a recent ruling by an employment tribunal in the case of Gibbons and Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board. While employment tribunal decisions are not binding in future cases, it is always useful to understand what a tribunal's view was on a given subject. In this case, prior to returning from maternity leave, a healthcare support worker in a hospital told her employer that her plan was to continue breastfeeding when she returned to work. and so as to maintain her privacy, she would like a lockable room in which to express. During these conversations, the hospital indicated that it would install a lock on the door of a suitable room before the healthcare worker returned, but this was not done. Instead, the healthcare worker was given a sign to put on the door and, as there was no lock, told to put a chair against the door so nobody could come in. The healthcare worker was unhappy with this arrangement, finding it to be both undignified and a fire risk. During expressing, there were a number of intrusions and the healthcare worker was signed off sick with stress and anxiety. She raised a grievance, and the hospital apologised, and once again agreed that the healthcare worker, who was now on a second period of maternity leave, would have a lockable room available on her return. On her second return, the healthcare worker was given access to a room with a lock, but only at certain times. She believed this impacted her ability to successfully breastfeed, left her at risk of becoming unwell, and made her feel as though she was a burden. The healthcare worker subsequently brought various claims against her employer. An employment tribunal found that the failure to provide an internally lockable room was unwanted conduct related to the healthcare worker's sex and, while not intentional, it had the effect of violating her dignity and the hospital could have done more to make sure the lock was fitted before the healthcare worker's return. The tribunal noted that it is important that a mother feel secure and relaxed when expressing and the absence of the lock left the healthcare worker anxious about the risk of people walking in. She also felt belittled by the lock not being provided, her needs not being met and by her ongoing resulting vulnerability that could leave her exposed or not being able to express effectively. In respect of the return from the second period of maternity leave, a lockable room had been promised in the return to work plan and the failure to then provide this had the effect of creating a humiliating environment for the healthcare worker. where she again felt unsupported and at risk of being walked in on. The tribunal also found it was objectively reasonable for her to feel this way, particularly as she had been promised a lockable room as part of the grievance outcome process. While it acknowledged that there were issues for the hospital, namely that the ward on which the healthcare worker worked did not have a suitable room, this potential problem should have been spotted at an earlier stage, allowing time for it to be resolved. In light of its findings, The Employment Tribunal upheld the healthcare worker's complaint of harassment related to sex in respect of her return from the second period of maternity leave. However, her complaint in respect of the first return to work was out of time and therefore its merit could not be considered by the Tribunal. This decision, although non-binding, indicates a willingness by tribunals to uphold a complaint of sex-related harassment, where an employer has failed to properly make provision for employees who wish to express milk on returning from maternity leave. In order to avoid potential pitfalls, employers would be wise to engage meaningfully with any employee who asks them to accommodate a wish to express milk on their return to work. and should take steps to provide a suitable room in advance of the employee's return so that any problems can be identified in good time. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Share
Embed
You may also like
Description
An employment tribunal has grappled with whether an employer’s failure to provide suitable facilities to allow a mother to express breast milk on her return to work amounted to sex-related harassment. Listen along to find out what happened!
Hosted by Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today in the Lefevre HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing a recent ruling by an employment tribunal in the case of Gibbons and Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board. While employment tribunal decisions are not binding in future cases, it is always useful to understand what a tribunal's view was on a given subject. In this case, prior to returning from maternity leave, a healthcare support worker in a hospital told her employer that her plan was to continue breastfeeding when she returned to work. and so as to maintain her privacy, she would like a lockable room in which to express. During these conversations, the hospital indicated that it would install a lock on the door of a suitable room before the healthcare worker returned, but this was not done. Instead, the healthcare worker was given a sign to put on the door and, as there was no lock, told to put a chair against the door so nobody could come in. The healthcare worker was unhappy with this arrangement, finding it to be both undignified and a fire risk. During expressing, there were a number of intrusions and the healthcare worker was signed off sick with stress and anxiety. She raised a grievance, and the hospital apologised, and once again agreed that the healthcare worker, who was now on a second period of maternity leave, would have a lockable room available on her return. On her second return, the healthcare worker was given access to a room with a lock, but only at certain times. She believed this impacted her ability to successfully breastfeed, left her at risk of becoming unwell, and made her feel as though she was a burden. The healthcare worker subsequently brought various claims against her employer. An employment tribunal found that the failure to provide an internally lockable room was unwanted conduct related to the healthcare worker's sex and, while not intentional, it had the effect of violating her dignity and the hospital could have done more to make sure the lock was fitted before the healthcare worker's return. The tribunal noted that it is important that a mother feel secure and relaxed when expressing and the absence of the lock left the healthcare worker anxious about the risk of people walking in. She also felt belittled by the lock not being provided, her needs not being met and by her ongoing resulting vulnerability that could leave her exposed or not being able to express effectively. In respect of the return from the second period of maternity leave, a lockable room had been promised in the return to work plan and the failure to then provide this had the effect of creating a humiliating environment for the healthcare worker. where she again felt unsupported and at risk of being walked in on. The tribunal also found it was objectively reasonable for her to feel this way, particularly as she had been promised a lockable room as part of the grievance outcome process. While it acknowledged that there were issues for the hospital, namely that the ward on which the healthcare worker worked did not have a suitable room, this potential problem should have been spotted at an earlier stage, allowing time for it to be resolved. In light of its findings, The Employment Tribunal upheld the healthcare worker's complaint of harassment related to sex in respect of her return from the second period of maternity leave. However, her complaint in respect of the first return to work was out of time and therefore its merit could not be considered by the Tribunal. This decision, although non-binding, indicates a willingness by tribunals to uphold a complaint of sex-related harassment, where an employer has failed to properly make provision for employees who wish to express milk on returning from maternity leave. In order to avoid potential pitfalls, employers would be wise to engage meaningfully with any employee who asks them to accommodate a wish to express milk on their return to work. and should take steps to provide a suitable room in advance of the employee's return so that any problems can be identified in good time. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Description
An employment tribunal has grappled with whether an employer’s failure to provide suitable facilities to allow a mother to express breast milk on her return to work amounted to sex-related harassment. Listen along to find out what happened!
Hosted by Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today in the Lefevre HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing a recent ruling by an employment tribunal in the case of Gibbons and Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board. While employment tribunal decisions are not binding in future cases, it is always useful to understand what a tribunal's view was on a given subject. In this case, prior to returning from maternity leave, a healthcare support worker in a hospital told her employer that her plan was to continue breastfeeding when she returned to work. and so as to maintain her privacy, she would like a lockable room in which to express. During these conversations, the hospital indicated that it would install a lock on the door of a suitable room before the healthcare worker returned, but this was not done. Instead, the healthcare worker was given a sign to put on the door and, as there was no lock, told to put a chair against the door so nobody could come in. The healthcare worker was unhappy with this arrangement, finding it to be both undignified and a fire risk. During expressing, there were a number of intrusions and the healthcare worker was signed off sick with stress and anxiety. She raised a grievance, and the hospital apologised, and once again agreed that the healthcare worker, who was now on a second period of maternity leave, would have a lockable room available on her return. On her second return, the healthcare worker was given access to a room with a lock, but only at certain times. She believed this impacted her ability to successfully breastfeed, left her at risk of becoming unwell, and made her feel as though she was a burden. The healthcare worker subsequently brought various claims against her employer. An employment tribunal found that the failure to provide an internally lockable room was unwanted conduct related to the healthcare worker's sex and, while not intentional, it had the effect of violating her dignity and the hospital could have done more to make sure the lock was fitted before the healthcare worker's return. The tribunal noted that it is important that a mother feel secure and relaxed when expressing and the absence of the lock left the healthcare worker anxious about the risk of people walking in. She also felt belittled by the lock not being provided, her needs not being met and by her ongoing resulting vulnerability that could leave her exposed or not being able to express effectively. In respect of the return from the second period of maternity leave, a lockable room had been promised in the return to work plan and the failure to then provide this had the effect of creating a humiliating environment for the healthcare worker. where she again felt unsupported and at risk of being walked in on. The tribunal also found it was objectively reasonable for her to feel this way, particularly as she had been promised a lockable room as part of the grievance outcome process. While it acknowledged that there were issues for the hospital, namely that the ward on which the healthcare worker worked did not have a suitable room, this potential problem should have been spotted at an earlier stage, allowing time for it to be resolved. In light of its findings, The Employment Tribunal upheld the healthcare worker's complaint of harassment related to sex in respect of her return from the second period of maternity leave. However, her complaint in respect of the first return to work was out of time and therefore its merit could not be considered by the Tribunal. This decision, although non-binding, indicates a willingness by tribunals to uphold a complaint of sex-related harassment, where an employer has failed to properly make provision for employees who wish to express milk on returning from maternity leave. In order to avoid potential pitfalls, employers would be wise to engage meaningfully with any employee who asks them to accommodate a wish to express milk on their return to work. and should take steps to provide a suitable room in advance of the employee's return so that any problems can be identified in good time. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Share
Embed
You may also like
