Not allowing heavily pregnant woman to use a loo

We don't have public toilets in our place where I work, but today manager made exception for a father and tiny toddler. The same place made exception for me once too - not a shop and not sure what the policies are. We would do exception for a pregnant lady, because we have actually more than 50 toilets

"When I worked retail, I wasn't not allowed to "bend the rules", ever. I would have lost my job if found out. Sorry, but that's not a chance I was going to take, nor is it something I would expect from a shop staff as a customer"

To be honest I would be happy losing that job on principle if they had that attitude.

This is a bit sad. I always know where all the public toilets are, pubs, even places with bushes

Have you worked for the Co - op in a managerial role in the last few months?

@wombat15

Have you worked for the Co - op in a managerial role in the last few months?
If not you don't know what their insurance policy says.

You have my sympathies OP.

To the PPs suggesting a she wee, where the hell do you propose OP uses it? No way would I use a she wee in a public place, not even in an obscured corner. Sheesh.

And thankfully they didn't as she would of pissed on the floor in their instead. Just what you want on your lunch break eating a sandwich in the staff room and a random woman comes in and pisses on the floor

Would the school not let you use their loo?

I didn't say she couldn't whinge?

I have merely asked, as op had mentioned Co op's standards etc whether she had let them know at head office. Which op clearly doesn't want to say hasn't.

Pathetic yourself.

Currently, if someone has been employed for less than two years you can sack them for no reason at all, subject to very limited exceptions (eg you can’t sack people because of race/disability, trade union membership and the like). You don’t have to follow any particular procedure, you just have to pay them out their notice period.

So actually it’s pretty easy to sack someone (and yes, IAAL).

Even if someone has been employed for 2+ years, then if staff have been told they must not allow the pubic to use the toilets in any circumstances but go ahead, this would constitute failure to comply with a reasonable and lawful direction. This will usually amount to either* *repudiation of the contract of employment (meaning the employer can treat it at an end and sack the employee), or a valid reason for dismissal within the unfair dismissal jurisdiction (ditto).

Whether the employee would have an argument that the rule was not reasonable in the circumstances I don’t know, but honestly: why should the employee be expected to take the risk in arguing that and losing?

The situation sucks, I really feel for OP but that does not mean the shop staff were in any way unreasonable.

No, I do have an idea. I worked in many chemist shops and other shops over the years and certainly have let people use the toilets if they have a medical need. Obviously they need to be accompanied so they don't steal stuff but that's nothing to do with insurance.

The thing is, if they let you and then another customer hears and then they ask what then? You say you’re pregnant, they say they are old. Do you see what I mean? Lack of public toilets is a major issue but it’s not the coop’s fault.

I am so sorry that this happened OP. Not at all nice, and the lack of public loos makes life very difficult, but especially for women.

just to reconfirm, the pregnant women peeing in policemen's helmets, or having a policeman's coat round them while peeing, are both myths.

However, a certain amount of discretion is given to the police when it comes to the offence of urinating in a public place, so, if caught short, it might be somewhat reassuring to know that.

Pads and/or a Sheewee or similar sound like good ideas.

I don't think most people are doing that. I think most people are supporting the staff. I'm definitely starting to think we should set up a national campaign though. It really is a feminist issue when you think about it.

All insurance policies are different, but it really isn't unusual for them to cover certain areas for the public and certain areas staff only. It really isn't. Who knows what kind of policy this particular Co-Op has.

I'm not sure what 'pleasure' has to do with anything, and I still disagree with the idea that just because a business is open to the public requires it to provide toilet facilities to the public. Having toilets open to anyone who buys a Mars Bar is going to be logistically very difficult and expensive for small businesses. Are you prepared to pay higher prices to subsidise these toilets?

The staff may not be to blame but all of the posters pedantically supporting the policy argument are adding to the problem which will only change if there is sufficient public outrage and lobbying!

@wombat15

You keep stating things as fact when you have no idea what is and isn't included in insurance.

Aren't you doing exactly the same thing?

And most of us would probably agree with that, but it's not yet in place, so the staff who refused OP are not to blame.

I used to live near a school and once or twice when the main facilities were closed, and the school was being used for a private function, I actually did let the odd desperate mother and child in to use my loo which was handily by the front door!

I’m not stupid and I am aware of all of those obstacles but I am arguing that legislation should change to regulate the provision of public and private facilities.

People don’t visit food shops for pleasure usually; they serve a basic human need. And going to the loo is a basic human need also.

Legislation currently exists to regulate how many fast food and fried chicken outlets are allowed to open around certain schools. I am sure the same strategy could be applied in reverse to lavatories IF government actors actually considered basic human civility to be as important as making a profit!

Maybe they never would be, but it's the threat of it, isn't it? If you're told under no circumstances to allow something, and you're worried about your job, you'll just do what you're told.

I feel you OP, was once experiencing a medical emergency, peeing blood, throwing up due to a kidney infection on the side of a motorway, the garage in services wouldn’t let me use the toilet - I was utterly desperate.

How do you know "they definitely wouldn't let people back if it was direct to the drugs" If someone has a medical need for the toilet and they are accompanied, they absolutely do.

You keep stating things as fact when you have no idea what is and isn't included in insurance. If they have a choice about what sort of insurance to have, why would any company put themselves in a position where they didn't have insurance if a member of the public used the toilet?

Posters keep saying a shop asst would be sacked.

Where is the actual legal evidence for this?
I'd like to see it.

What are the grounds?
Professional misconduct?

It's very hard to sack anyone now as they usually need a verbal and written warning unless they are doing something extreme.