Time off for dependents

kittiej

Hi everyone, I just wanted to know some thoughts please.

If an employer includes time off to deal with dependents in an emergency situation in the Bradford formula calculations would this not leave the employer open to a potential sex discrimination claim?

I realise that 'dependent' covers more than children but since it would normally be the mother having to deal with an ill child and not the father then it seems a bit unfair to me.

Tigsteroonie

kittiej wrote: »

I realise that 'dependent' covers more than children but since it would normally be the mother having to deal with an ill child and not the father then it seems a bit unfair to me.

But surely that is your choice - for the Mum to be off rather than the Dad - and therefore a situation of your own making, rather than the employer discriminating in any way?

liney

Fathers are deemed equally responsible, and rightly so, for children when taking into consideration whether time of for dependents is 'reasonable.'

kittiej

But not all family units contain 2 parents, or 2 biological parents so it is down to the mother to give medical consent for instance.

liney

This still doesn't change the amount of time off that a company will deem 'reasonable.'

My point is the time your company will allow you to take is not unlimited. If this is shared by a partner, as expected, then the burden is not taken by one employer and will be less likely to trigger action.

zzzLazyDaisy

It isn't about what individual couples might choose to do, it is about the statistical evidence. The reason part-time workers have statutory protection from discrimination is because of earlier legal challenges showing that statistically most part-timers are women. I don't *know* the statistics, but I'd be willing to bet that most workers who take time off for family emergencies are also women.

More importantly, though, time off for dependents is a statutory right, and the employer should not be penalising you for exercising that right.

Are you in a union, if so that should be your first port of call for advice. Otherwise you might consider contacting EHRC http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/ although their funding for advice was cut while back, they do still have an advice line but I don't know how good it is. I don't recommend ACAS as it is little more than a call centre with people reading from a tick sheet these days, although if you can get through to a concilliation officer, they may be willing to mediate for you.

But first, I suggest that you speak to HR, as it is possible that this is a misunderstanding, and even if it is not, it would be useful to get their explanation/justification before taking advice.

Good luck and let us know how you get on.

Dx

kittiej

Thanks LD, I didn't know if I was just going a bit militant lol

This has been communicated out via email to employees or verbally and has been agreed by some head office committee apparently, though I have a feeling the union might have been involved - but don't quote me.

Yes to there being a lot of pt workers as well. I understand that there could be people using it as an excuse etc as with all systems there's a flaw but it seemed a bit wrong for an employer to say this tbh.

zzzLazyDaisy

kittiej wrote: »

though I have a feeling the union might have been involved - but don't quote me.

Okay, if there is a union, that is the first place to go for advice. If this is a policy that has been agreed with the union, then it is binding on all employees, whether they are union members or not. That doesn't make it lawful, of course, but it does make it more difficult to challenge through normal internal channels.

If you do in fact end up going through the process as a result of relying on your statutory rights, come back for advice. But please do be aware that 'time off for emergencies' is just that. It is the right to take reasonable time off where there is an emergency concerning family or dependents, to make appropriate arrangements (ie arrange to have the person looked after). It is NOT a right (as some think) to take a week off to care for a sick child, or whatever - so you may find that the employer is targeting the abuse of the system and any genuine and reasonable instances may well be disregarded following the meeting (in other words, these absences may contribute towards the trigger, but not in fact be counted for sanctions if accepted as genuinely falling within the statutory criteria)

paddedjohn

kittiej wrote: »

But not all family units contain 2 parents, or 2 biological parents so it is down to the mother to give medical consent for instance.

Not all single parents are mothers.

zzzLazyDaisy

paddedjohn wrote: »

Not all single parents are mothers.

Right, so given that we are talking about discrimination in employment...

Are you saying that (say) a recruitment policy that excluded single parent applicants would not amount to unlawful discrimination, because around 8% to 11% of single parents in the UK are men?

kittiej

Ok a little update, after speaking with a union rep it seems this is what the company wants and not what they have agreed with the union.

There will be further talks because the union is seriously unhappy about time off to deal with emergencies being included in the Bradford formula calculations.

So I will give an update when I hear something.