Is this fair ? Civil Service Redeployment Pool

littleblue735

I'm currently an AA ( Admin Assistant ) in the RDP with the Civil Service. I've been matched to a vacancy which is an hour's drive away, and almost two hours if using public transport. I've turned it down as I do not want to commute four hours a day as my partner usually has the car. The journey would include 10 min walk, two buses and a train.

But I've been told I must attend the interview. Okay fair play guess I'll have to discuss this at the interview and hope its Flexi-time !

However I've been talking to a colleague, also an AA in the RDP and she turned it down giving the same reason as myself i.e. didn't want to do the long commute but added that she has a child and will need to collect him from school. So she does not have to attend the interview.

I feel that I am being treated differently because I do not have children. Is this fair ? Would this be discrimination ?
Any advice would be welcome

Thank you

KiKi

Being a parent - or not - is not a protected characteristic, and therefore whilst it may be discrimination, it's not unlawful discrimination. It's also possible that (s)he already has an agreement in place with the employer regarding childcare and working hours that you're not aware of, which would impact her needing to attend this interview.

Whether it's against policy of the civil service to discriminate against non-parents or parents is another matter (and I don't know the answer).

You never know, you may end up with a job that allows some home working and flexible working which may work out really well for you! I did think there were some 'rules' / guidance around how far was reasonable when reconsidering people for roles in a company - but not sure how far that is. Perhaps someone else on here will know.

KiKi

SarEl

KiKi wrote: »

Being a parent - or not - is not a protected characteristic, and therefore whilst it may be discrimination, it's not unlawful discrimination. It's also possible that (s)he already has an agreement in place with the employer regarding childcare and working hours that you're not aware of, which would impact her needing to attend this interview.

Whether it's against policy of the civil service to discriminate against non-parents or parents is another matter (and I don't know the answer).

You never know, you may end up with a job that allows some home working and flexible working which may work out really well for you! I did think there were some 'rules' / guidance around how far was reasonable when reconsidering people for roles in a company - but not sure how far that is. Perhaps someone else on here will know.

KiKi

Sorry KiKi. I agree 99.9%. But discrimination against someone on the basis of parental responsibility IS unlawful. It is in fact a protected characteristic! Unfortunately, the reverse is not true. There is no law which prevents discrimination against the childless.

The "rules" you were reaching for are tribunal rules: 50 miles each way or 90 minutes each way. In this case it is borderline. The law doesn't care about your transportation arrangements! So it could, legally, be risky.

KiKi

SarEl wrote: »

Sorry KiKi. I agree 99.9%. But discrimination against someone on the basis of parental responsibility IS unlawful. It is in fact a protected characteristic!

I wasn't aware of that - under the Equality Act? I didn't think parenthood was legislated for (or against!).

So if someone said in the first 24 months of employment "you're a parent and I'm going to sack you on that basis", that would be unlawful? Just as "you're not a parent, I'm going to sack you on that basis"?

I know you can't ask questions about childcare etc for interviews, and there is legislated support through parental leave, but I wasn't aware that being a parent was - or has ever been - a protected characteristic?

Not disputing it, genuinely want to know!

The "rules" you were reaching for are tribunal rules: 50 miles each way or 90 minutes each way. In this case it is borderline. The law doesn't care about your transportation arrangements! So it could, legally, be risky.

I shall commit this one to memory - thanks!!

SarEl

You cannot sack someone because they are a parent - that is protected. You could theoretically sack somone because they aren't a parent, although I wouldn't recommend it because some clever s^d like me will come along and find a reason why it's unlawful! Of course, none of that means you can't sack parents - you just can't do it because of parental responsibility. There are several pieces of legislation in the way - so you'd have to do it on performance, misconduct or (fair) redundancy. You are confusing protected characteristics (like race, sex etc., for the uninitiated) under the Equality Act with protections based on characteristics - and there are others, Another good example of another would be that you cannot dismiss someone for being a member of a trades union, but you can dismiss a trades union member!

getmore4less

SarEl wrote: »

The "rules" you were reaching for are tribunal rules: 50 miles each way or 90 minutes each way. In this case it is borderline. The law doesn't care about your transportation arrangements! So it could, legally, be risky.

AIUI the suitable alternative still has to be reasonble(mobility clauses extending what is reasonable) on an individual basis.

So what's reasonable( it has to base the 50 miles/90mins on something)

crow flies by helicopter?

You don't own a car or have access to one or a licence, tough learn and buy one if the job is close enough by car?

What about job status? cleaner, MD same miles/time?

Anyway

OP could go with an open mind it might be a good job.

Ask for expenses before you go, or ask them to come to you.

carefull, try to find out if there are more being interviewd might be a ploy(unlikely) but check and ask for more details about the job from the boss.

option, drive the interview with questions about the job looking for reasons for suitable/not suitable what they are looking for so you can counter.

Also look hard for jobs more local not being offered that may be suitable but not be a fit on the pool

john539

How much will the commute cost & who will pay for it ?

20p per mile (@ 30 miles/gallon) just on petrol for starters.

50 miles total (25 each way) per day = £2400 per year on petrol !

littleblue735

Thanks for replies.
I am able to claim mileage for the first two years so will not be out of pocket for fuel costs.
We both currently live 10 minutes walk from the office so a two hour commute would not be something to look forward too and we both currently are able to do Flexitime in our current posts.
It is not a job that can be done from home unfortunatly, but there may be a chance for flexi time options.

Guess I'll go for interview with open mind and mention the travelling and see what they say, I may not be suitable anyway !!

ohreally

Section 141 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 governs the rules on suitable alternative offers of employment in relation to redundancies

Work would normally be regarded as unsuitable if it meant changes in: Pay;Travelling time; Skill requirements; Status


Netlawman. Redundancy and suitable alternative employment. Available: http://www.netlawman.co.uk/info/redundancy-alternative-employment.php.

Is this job suitable?
Whether an alternative job offered is suitable depends on the terms of the job offered and the employee’s skills, abilities and circumstances. Factors such as pay, status, hours and location are relevant when deciding whether a job is a suitable alternative. The employer does not have to offer a similar position or a position in the same workplace.

Refusal on the grounds that the new job would mean moving house or lead to a significant change in working hours which did not fit with personal circumstances, would be acceptable. Refusal of a similar job without even looking into it would be unacceptable. An employee who refuses a suitable alternative may lose their entitlement to redundancy pay.

Work would normally be regarded as unsuitable if it meant changes in:
•Pay;
•Travelling time;
•Skill requirements;
•Status.

starrystarry

Could you not just "underperform" at the interview to ensure you don't get the job? Or am I missing something?

littleblue735

Thought I would post an update

After lots of talking with HR it seems I will be treated diffently to other staff members who have children. The fact that they have to be home by 4pm to pick up the kids is a valid reason not to have to attend any interviews outside of the immediate area. Seems like Discrimination to me but I've been told to suck it up !

I called the Line Manager of the new job and explained the situation regarding using Public Transport and they agree it wouldn't be worthwhile seeing me.
My travel costs over 3 years ( not 2 as I thought ) would equal about £12k and I don't think she wanted to pay for it out of her Budget...!
Thanks for the advice..............