Pregnant RAF officer awarded £16,000 for discrimination

#1
First we had the RAF Typist winning thousands for RSI & now this!!
She's in the Armed Forces serving her country ,not in a friggin secretarial pool for some big firm ffs!
How long was she in MPA before discovering she was up the duff anyway?
A disgrace to the service imho & a f*cking embaressment!
She missed her performance review because she took leave,well that show's what was more important to her & it was'nt her career!

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2010/06/03/55811/pregnant-raf-officer-awarded-16000-for-discrimination.html

A female officer in the Royal Air Force (RAF) has been awarded more than £16,000 after she was removed from her post because she was pregnant.

An employment tribunal found the officer - who chose not to be named because she still serves in the RAF - suffered discrimination, and the force had unintentionally created "an intimidating, degrading, hostile or offensive environment for her".

When the officer revealed to her superiors that she was 12 weeks pregnant, her request to stay in her desk-based job in the Falkland Islands was rejected, despite her RAF officer husband being based on the same island.

She was ordered to return to the UK immediately, and forced to take leave to return to the Falkland Islands to visit her husband. Her leave meant she missed out on a performance review which then delayed her promotion prospects.

In light of the case the employment tribunal recommended the Ministry of Defence (MoD) should carry out individual risk assessments for pregnant women and consider adjusting their roles to enable them to remain in their posts, and should establish a monitoring process in respect of any removal of a pregnant woman from her post. A performance appraisal for each pregnant woman commencing maternity leave should also be undertaken, it advised.


John Wadham, group director of the legal department of the Equality and Rights Commission, which funded the case, said: "The commission's research has shown that pregnant women are the most discriminated group of people in the workforce, with 30,000 losing their jobs each year as a result of their pregnancy.

"Larger employers such as the MoD should be leading the way in showing other organisations how to treat their pregnant workers. This judgment should serve as a reminder of what is expected of employers in these situations."
 
#2
She should have bee Court Martialed for a self inflicted wound IMHO
 
#3
I suppose she was awarded 16K because they RAF didnt make her attend a course on prophylaxis prior to deploying. They should deduct the money from her husbands salary - assuming the impregnation is his.
 
#4
spike7451 said:
First we had the RAF Typist winning thousands for RSI & now this!!
The typist you are referring to was not in the RAF, but worked on an RAF unit! Never let the truth get in the way of a good rant.

Curious that the performance review wasnt undertaken at the next available opportunity.
 
#5
I support this ruling, not because of the case material (i don't know enough about it), but because it helps to create precident that can be utilised to increase the working rights of pregnant women.

Sometimes you have to slap an employer around the face with a pay award to change attitudes. The MoD is no different.
 
#8
payout arise because of shoite management that causes bad feeling which causes bitterness etc

Could have been avoided with a bit of common dog applied in a logical manner

But that is beyond the realms of a lot of the forces "management" who couldn't manage front of house at a quiet Mc D's
 
#9
metimmee said:
spike7451 said:
First we had the RAF Typist winning thousands for RSI & now this!!
The typist you are referring to was not in the RAF, but worked on an RAF unit! Never let the truth get in the way of a good rant.
Off-topic, but if you are referring to the same previous case I think you are, the "RAF typist" was a serving SACW.
 
#10
metimmee said:
spike7451 said:
First we had the RAF Typist winning thousands for RSI & now this!!
The typist you are referring to was not in the RAF, but worked on an RAF unit! Never let the truth get in the way of a good rant.

Curious that the performance review wasnt undertaken at the next available opportunity.
Dunno about the Army,but when I was doing my tour down the Falklands,you had performance review just before you left the islands at the end of your tour.I cant see how she could'nt have nipped into her old bosses office during her leave for a half hour chat without coffee..

EDIT:

I was indeed Hackle.
 
#12
I too think this to be fair. They didnt have to bring her back, she was riding a desk. It seems to be really shoddy HR. It isnt as if she asked to be brought back. Or so the article says :evil:
 
#13
So, women can't be safely pregnant in the FI? Makes you wonder how the locals have survived over the last 200 years or so. This is p*ss poor management and leadership from her superiors - another case of the Armed Forces shooting themselves in the foot.....
 
#14
tropper66 said:
She should have bee Court Martialed for a self inflicted wound IMHO
see now, that's HOW they get away with the 'discrimination' bit! Rightly or wrongly, it only takes a few comments like that to be overheard by her or her friends and she has a discrimination case presented on a plate to her!
 

Forastero

LE
Moderator
#15
spike7451 said:
First we had the RAF Typist winning thousands for RSI & now this!!
She's in the Armed Forces serving her country ,not in a friggin secretarial pool for some big firm ffs!
How long was she in MPA before discovering she was up the duff anyway?
A disgrace to the service imho & a f*cking embaressment!
She missed her performance review because she took leave,well that show's what was more important to her & it was'nt her career!
Please reassure me you're not still serving?
 
#16
She got the payout as the MoD acted unlawfully, simple as that. And the MoD will continue to waste money like this until it removes its collective head from its rear and acknowledges that UK employment law does apply to it.

Sanctioning the idiots who managed her and created the situation would be a good start too, I know what would happen to me if I cost the company 16 grand and expenses for a tribunal case I created by my incompetence.
 
#18
bigbird67 said:
tropper66 said:
She should have bee Court Martialed for a self inflicted wound IMHO
see now, that's HOW they get away with the 'discrimination' bit! Rightly or wrongly, it only takes a few comments like that to be overheard by her or her friends and she has a discrimination case presented on a plate to her!
She hasn't 'got away' with anything. If, as the Gimp rightly points out, certain individuals in managerial positions applied more common sense and less personal sentiment in their decision making, the MoD wouldn't be shelling out thousands of pounds of taxpayers money. Those 'decision makers' who create litigation through conduct such as that reported, wouldn't be so quick to decide these matters if the remedy sued for came from their own pockets. I don't know about you, but as a tax payer I'm fed up paying for the inability of some people in the Forces to treat people with a bit of dignity just because it goes against their personal belief as to how the Forces should be run. As for Tropper's comment, well thankfully the Forces have (less a few individual cases) moved on since the 60's & 70's. On the face of it all, this has been a fair decision. Maybe those who created the case should consider improving their managerial skills, after all they are the very same who insist that their NCOs and WOs attend courses to improve theirs.
 
#20
Hi

Here is my take on the situation, based on the information make available

|I assume she had a duty to report her pregnancy and did so. It appears from the cutting that she asked to continue in her desk based role, but the RAF ordered her home on leave instead, despite having a further six months to go before the birth. In the civilian world women who work in offices frequently work right up to eight months and why not if they are fit enough? Let's face it, an office role is not front line and she is unlikely to be expected to pick up a rifle any time soon in the Farklands. More to the point the forces are full of people undertaking back room roles which no one would reasonable expect to man a gun pit in time of crisis.

To make matters worse, they failed to reschedule her performance review which the tribunal decided disadvantaged her promotion prospects. Was her performance review scheduled to take place in the Farklands and the reason she could not attend being that the RAF had ordered her home by any chance? If a man who suffered an illness, injury or unforeseen family crisis was also disadvantaged by an inability to attend a scheduled performance review we would all be rightly outraged and I see little difference here between the male example and that of the women.

Where I do agree is that there should have been no grounds for compensation. What should have happened is the officer responsible for mismanaging the situation should be reprimanded and the women properly provided with a correctly and fairly managed performance review as you would expect for a man in the example above. Clearly the officer in change or responsible for policy was not the brightest spark and one wonders how many other male and female careers have been mucked about with like this. I suspect we have all meet officers like this in our careers.

At the end of the day, pregnancy is not a crime in the forces and nor is fatherhood.

Hopefully the system will learn that people need to be treated fairly and cases like this will cease.

Gerry
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top