An Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld an Employment Tribunal ruling that the Army had discriminated against a soldier who was also a single parent after disciplining her for failing to appear on parade when her child was sick. The tribunal found that the Army had treated the female soldier less favourably than male soldiers.
The female soldier joined the Armed Forces after recruiters visited her village in St Vincent when she was 18 in March 2001. She had a baby in August 2005 and made arrangements that she would work from 8.30 am to 4.30 pm on weekdays but would not undertake weekend duties. She had organised childcare but missed training in December 2006 when her child fell ill. In January 2007 she failed to appear on parade because of childcare difficulties. She was told she faced disciplinary action. The soldier had tried to arrange for her half-sister to become a full-timer carer for her child. However, she was told that immigration rules meant that her half-sister would only enter the country as a visitor, could not stay for longer than six months and that the Army could not help. After seven years in the Army, she left and claimed discrimination. The Employment Tribunal found that the Army could have liaised with the UK Border Agency to have the usual immigration rules relaxed.
Despite the fact growing numbers of fathers are becoming involved in childcare and all three major parties are committed to either extending paternity leave or allowing mothers to transfer some of their maternity leave to fathers, childcare still tends to fall on mothers, so employers need to take care that any employment policies do not disadvantage those with childcare responsibilities as this is likely to be seen as indirect discrimination. Whilst employees generally accept responsibility for childcare arrangements, most nurseries and childminders will not take sick children and parents are entitled to emergency unpaid time off to make alternative arrangements for sick children.
In another recent case, Miller v Bellway Homes Ltd, the employer insisted that certain employees had to work full-time, which disadvantaged employees, mainly women, who needed to work part-time due to childcare responsibilities. Bellway Homes allowed a manager to take voluntary redundancy and offered the management position to Ms Miller providing she worked full-time. She could only work part-time due to childcare responsibilities, so refused the offer and made a successful claim for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination. The Employment Tribunal found that the requirement to work full-time disadvantaged employees with childcare duties who were more likely to be women and that Bellway Homes had not provided a satisfactory justification for insisting the position had to be full-time. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the Employment Tribunal’s decision. Lawson-West solicitors acted for the successful litigant, Ms Miller.
Employers should take care that their employment policies do not indirectly discriminate against employees with childcare responsibilities.
If you have any enquiries regarding discriminatory employment policies, please contact Ashley Hunt, Vaishali Thakerar or Carrie-Ann Randall on 0116 212 1000 now or complete one of the on-line forms.
