Nursery worker told she HAS to eat with children

Emmzi

RoxRoxBling wrote: »

Hi Azza,
I work at a nursery so I can understand. However, the manager should not 'force' your girlfriend to eat the food nor should she stop your gf from eating her own food. This is against the Human Rights for your gf.

But not actually in human rights legislation. Sorry, it hacks me off when I see people quoting "human rights!" when they have no idea what the law actually says.

claire16c

I agree with Nicki, she should say shes got a medical condition like IBS that means she cant always just eat what is on the menu. I have IBS and I have to say the thought of being forced to eat certain things that I know would upset my stomach, would be awful!!! I would just refuse.

Perhaps she could compromise by occasionally joining in and eating with the kids on the days where she liked the food though? I mean then shed get a free lunch and would be getting something out of it herself anyway?

It does seem weird though that her break is not at the same time as the kids lunch but they want her to eat lunch then? So what would she do in her break - isnt that for eating her lunch?

RoxRoxBling

Emmzi wrote: »

But not actually in human rights legislation. Sorry,it hacks me off when I see people quoting "human rights!" when theyhave no idea what the law actually says.

I did not QUOTE the legislation I just IMPLIED that as a person she cannot be told what to eat (Which is what OP wanted to know) as this is obviously causing stress for the GF!

azza21 wrote: »

The new person who replaced her has introduced newrules one of which is the nursery workers have to eat with the childrenat dinner times. At first she changed the rules to, nursery workershad to look as if they were eating with the children. Now when i say eat dinnerthey have to eat what the children are eating with them not there ownfood.

azza21 wrote: »

"Yes to encourage them to eat the food. She was told in no uncertainterms she had to eat what her children had to eat, be it macaroni cheese,spaghetti anything. She has to eat it with them and yes she brings her own packlunch in and has a seperate lunch break. She is not allowed to eat her lunch withthe children, has to be what they eat. "

Emmzi

RoxRoxBling wrote: »

I did not QUOTE the legislation I just IMPLIED that as a person she cannot be told what to eat (Which is what OP wanted to know) as this is obviously causing stress for the GF!

It is no breach of human rights as no one is forcing her to work there, therefore no one is forcing her to eat anything at all.

Your approach is not the most productive - going in full steam and mouthing off about "rights" that do not exist seldom is.

If right is not protected by legislation it's not really a right, is it? Just an opinion.

marybelle01

Emmzi wrote: »

It is no breach of human rights as no one is forcing her to work there, therefore no one is forcing her to eat anything at all.

Your approach is not the most productive - going in full steam and mouthing off about "rights" that do not exist seldom is.

If right is not protected by legislation it's not really a right, is it? Just an opinion.

I agree. Interesting though this thread is it is all opinion. From first to last. The law doesn't prevent the employer from insisting on this, does it? And somehow I think that "I am claiming constructive dismissal because my employer made me eat lunch with the children " just isn't going to go down in the annals of successful tribunal claims. Maybe the simplest answer is that if one doesn't like the way the workplace is run it is time to find another job. Whatever our opinions are, and whatever we may think should happen, we don't run the workplace and we can't decide it. And I can't think there's a law that says that this is illegal.

nimbo

the GF shouldn't feel that she has to eat whatever food they provide for the children be it fish fingers to really nutritious balanced meals that count calories for her....

in her break she should be free to eat exactly as she chooses, and if that 's 12 packets of crisps than she should be free to do so.

there was no suggestion from the OP that she wanted to get out of working there, just that she wished to be free to eat what she choose. (and from what i've seen of the local nursery lunches who can blame her, they still have soggy carrots, and limp unwashed salads).

working with children can be stressful, and noisy why shouldn't she get half an hour (or however long she is entitled to) in a quiet back room to have a bit of time to relax.... if she eats with the children what is to stop the nursery from saying that the time taken was her lunch break, even though she will have been supervising the children....

she will have to say something (herself) and it can be intimidating, but she should just follow the procedure set out in her contract/handbook and be polite. it's probably best to have it in writing so it can't come out wrong, and she has a record of what she said, and be firm.

tell her good luck.

jobbingmusician

The OP's GF gets a separate break for lunch.

If this ever came to tribunal, the case would hinge on whether the employer was being reasonable in asking the employee to eat with the children.

She clearly CANNOT be forced to eat specific foods. I think it is a reasonable management request to ask her to eat with the children, and even to finish everything on her plate (or make reasonable inroads into the food, as an example to the kids), SO LONG AS she has choice about what is put on her plate in the first place, can choose from a variety of meals and does not have to have everything on offer that day. It is NOT a reasonable management request that she should eat whatever is on offer that day, with no choice. And some days, she may not want lunch. It is NOT a reasonable management request that she should eat if she is not feeling hungry, is on a diet or has specific medical dietary requirements.

If she has a phobia about eating in public, or eating at all, this needs addressing with her doctor (and the employer needs to know).

There are also cases where this might be religious persecution....Brahma Kumaris try only to eat food which has been prepared by other Brahma Kumaris.

RoxRoxBling

Emmzi wrote: »

Your approach is not the most productive - going in full steam and mouthing off about "rights" that do not exist seldom is.

Well neither is your approach.

DVardysShadow

jobbingmusician wrote: »

The OP's GF gets a separate break for lunch.

If this ever came to tribunal, the case would hinge on whether the employer was being reasonable in asking the employee to eat with the children.

She clearly CANNOT be forced to eat specific foods. I think it is a reasonable management request to ask her to eat with the children, and even to finish everything on her plate (or make reasonable inroads into the food, as an example to the kids), SO LONG AS she has choice about what is put on her plate in the first place, can choose from a variety of meals and does not have to have everything on offer that day. It is NOT a reasonable management request that she should eat whatever is on offer that day, with no choice. And some days, she may not want lunch. It is NOT a reasonable management request that she should eat if she is not feeling hungry, is on a diet or has specific medical dietary requirements.

If she has a phobia about eating in public, or eating at all, this needs addressing with her doctor (and the employer needs to know).

There are also cases where this might be religious persecution....Brahma Kumaris try only to eat food which has been prepared by other Brahma Kumaris.

You can see where this trend will go. Gross misconduct for Nursery workers not to finish the food on their plates. Foe which very reason, it is unreasonable [IMO] to expect them to eat with the children

cbrown372

in the first post the OP said the manager suggested anyone with a problem with eating the lunch that they should speak to her, this hasn't been done and should be the first port of call?

It appears the problem is the OP's g/f doesn't like/get on with the manager and the lunch thing is a secondary problem.