Can my boss prioritise annual leave allocation for those with kids first?

Takeaway_Addict

sangie595 wrote: »

No they couldn't. Having children is not a protected characteristic. The protected characteristics under the 2010 Equality Act are:

• Age
• Disability
• Gender Reassignment
• Pregnancy and Maternity
• Marriage and Civil Partnership
• Race
• Religion or belief.
• Sex
• Sexual Orientation

Nothing about having children. You are confusing this with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act which protects the right to family life. It has no application in this context.

No, I am not. See previous posts- Indirect discrimination could apply.

sangie595

TELLIT01 wrote: »

Of course it's a lifestyle choice. People do choose to have children, they aren't found under a gooseberry bush or in the cabbage patch. Not having children may or may not be a lifestyle choice but, to those who don't have kids not by choice, giving holiday priority to those with kids can just be rubbing their noses in it!
Where I work the managers do look back over previous years to see who had what days off over Christmas and will generally prioritise those who didn't have time off last year. On the other hand, at one place I worked, one woman used to book time off around every Bank Holiday, every year, and got away with it because they were flavour of the month with their boss.

Maybe adults don't think that Christmas is a time for kids and would like the same holiday choices. Of course, you are assuming that everyone even celebrates Christmas. And yes, some people may get preferential treatment for no reason other than the boss likes them. Which is still not illegal!

But then, if you don't have children you get vastly preferential rates from holiday companies on your travel because school holidays are charged at a massive premium which penalise parents for their limited choices. I presume you will be refusing to book a vacation at anything other than school holiday times in solidarity with parents?

Life isn't fair. Were you expecting it to be? Perhaps I am lucky because my offices close over the holiday period. But if they didn't, I'd be ashamed of myself if I were making a huge deal over parents getting some "Santa time" with their children at the very short period of their lives when they actually still believe that the world is magical and fair.

sangie595

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

No, I am not. See previous posts- Indirect discrimination could apply.

Indirect discrimination on which of these protected characteristics? I did read the previous posts. I don't see it remotely happening. Ever. These days anyone can potentially have a child between the ages of about 8 years old and above 60 - and that is just women! I am assuming most under 8 year olds aren't part of the workforce. And you are making gross assumptions based on gender - males can continue to reproduce for much longer. So no discrimination - male or female, or age. I will be waiting to hear how it might be discrimination on any of the other grounds.

Owain_Moneysaver

tizerbelle wrote: »

The fact those without children are being treated less favourably is entirely lawful unless all those who have got the holidays are female and all those who haven't are male - then it could be gender discrimination.

It may be indirect discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, if !!!!!exuals are less likely to have children than heterosexuals.

theoretica

Age - just because a few people of any age have children doesn't mean that childrearing ages are equally distributed and it couldn't statistically be discrimination.
Marriage/partnership - possibly, depending on thow the policy is applied to non-resident parents, for instance.

tizerbelle

Apologies all I have to correct myself and confirm that having children is NOT a protected characteristic.

I did a quick google yesterday to recap the characteristics and although I can't remember which site it was (but it was a law company one!) it referred to being pregnant or having children as a protected characteristic and I took this on face value (stupid, I know) and should have realised that the protection is only during the pregnancy and maternity leave period.

Sorry!

sangie595

theoretica wrote: »

Age - just because a few people of any age have children doesn't mean that childrearing ages are equally distributed and it couldn't statistically be discrimination.
Marriage/partnership - possibly, depending on thow the policy is applied to non-resident parents, for instance.

Equality in law has nothing to do with even distribution. If it did most every employer would have a lot of explaining to do about all the white men in senior positions. That is statistically discrimination, but you'll never win a case on it.

Ad everything depends on something - there is no evidence that points to all the married people getting time off when the others don't.

We have moved from the North Pole to Fairy Land.

None of which matters because the OP is depending on the employers HR to not mention that they were the one who caused the parents to be working Christmas day. And if their colleagues don't find that out, then I also believe in Fairy Land.

sangie595

Owain_Moneysaver wrote: »

It may be indirect discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, if !!!!!exuals are less likely to have children than heterosexuals.

Oh dear. Someone is behind the times. I am striving to think of any of my same sex partnership / married friends who don't have children. And it is still irrelevant, as statistical likelihood is still not the test. As I said, if the law were based on statistical likelihood every employer would have a representative sample of gay, or female, or black, or disabled, or whatever people in their senior positions (and throughout their organisations). I wish it were that easy tp prove discrimination. Anyone who has tried such cases knows it never is.

sangie595

tizerbelle wrote: »

Apologies all I have to correct myself and confirm that having children is NOT a protected characteristic.

I did a quick google yesterday to recap the characteristics and although I can't remember which site it was (but it was a law company one!) it referred to being pregnant or having children as a protected characteristic and I took this on face value (stupid, I know) and should have realised that the protection is only during the pregnancy and maternity leave period.

Sorry!

Easy mistake. Most people think parental responsibility is in the list. And maybe it ought to be. But it isn't.

melysion

The fact of the matter is Christmas is a time for family and that could mean all sorts of families, including those without children. And it could get just as important for those people to have the time off, particularly if, like me, their family live 300 miles away. Thankfully I'm in a job that means I don't work over Xmas as the office is shut but let me tell you something - I would not take my unfair share of xmas working for anyone. It needs to be fairly distributed with people having worked the year before getting the next year off etc. Children should not at any point figure in the equation. Parents should not have the monopoly over Xmas or indeed any other holiday period come to that. We all have loved ones you know!