Misinformation correction: M&S Staff

Yep - food hall had papers last time I went - admittedly a month or so ago

There might be a display in the food hall? I think I have seen them there.

If that is the M&S employee, and the mother's comments seem to imply that it would be (and assuming true, although as he is writing from his position as a manager in M&S there are further problems if he is lying), then:

why was a man taking bra returns from the till point into the lingerie section? Do they not have enough female staff?

the level of special treatment this man is getting with everyone going out of their way to personally support him, up to the level of the Scotland stores director; his boss ripping up all the papers in the store with the article in it and sending him special presents when he's in hospital for face feminisation surgery – where does this leave employees with legally-protected GC views? How does M&S fairly deal with and protect its GC employees?

he says M&S fitting rooms are gender neutral - so there are no female spaces then, M&S. He goes in and checks on the condition of the fitting rooms, although not one that is occupied (OBVIOUSLY, DUH). Which means potentially he is walking around the area between fitting rooms and into next-door cubicles while there are women undressed and trying on bras. Do M&S really think this is appropriate, and what their female customers expect and want?

he says the M&S bra fitting service is regardless of gender identity for colleagues and customers - the only conclusion then is that in M&S men can be trained as bra fitters and female employees can be expected to fit men with bras. Even if the M&S recent announcements say this is not the case, he is telling us that this is what has been happening. (I love that this is the "perhaps the biggest lie" of the article, which is what ruined his day off! His day off? What about women's lives and needs?)

There are hundreds of thousands of possible jobs in this world, and very many in retail. It is such a puzzle why trans identifying men need to work in and around lingerie departments.

Could be. But then I didn't know they had cafés these days. I've never noticed one in our local branches.

Aren't they available to customers in the cafe?

Do M&S sell newspapers? It's news to me if they do!

What if a customer wanted to read those newspapers?

Surely the customer wanting the Mail or Times merits them being available if M&S are politically impartial as their code of conduct requires them to be....

Or was ripping the headder off the papers (do shops still do that??) as proof of a return which is a theft by fraud as it forces a credit note from the supplier and a loss to the supplier and a loss to M&S for the sales value.

Should the jurnos check if that M&S looked for a unusual credit from the newspaper supplier on the day??

Role specific problems?
(Nursing has professional standards which in implementation harm prevention would somewhat modify the employers duty of care)

Mental fragility and need for affirmation are personal and subjective to the individual.

Employer has an obligation to protect from harraasment.

He is a man so what is reasonable in the context of men generally.

In this case the role is public facing with a multiple of persons who will actively discriminate under any of the protected characteristic and ones who will not.

So the reasonable test is can the employer stop the act.
Tedt 1 pre-vet the public and prevent?
Yes - obligation to act
No - can it be reasonable prevented in other ways
Idea A ; B ; C -Z
Yes - obligation to act
No - remove from role as Employer has taken all reasonable steps and can not prevent harm.

Then are there any specific gender reassignment issues created by anyone other than the employee?

Again
Yes -
Eg the Met Police 1999 had a male officer who was allowed become a "women officer" so different dress uniform and duties were expected one of which was managing female prisioners (strip search). The officer did not want to be involved but could be disiplined and not promoted due to the issue. So a third role was created "woman officer modified" where he could carry out normal police duties and not be involved with physical contact with women who lost the ability to control who touched her and the right to seek legal redress for the 'assault'.

No -
if the role cant be modified to prevent harm the next option is to redeploy into a new similar role or remove from the business.

It is always much safer for the "distress over the act" to be managed under disability. Otherwise the employer would have to get experts to say with a certainty that it was not a mental health condition that any man could have but rather only a man with the PC GR.

And at this stage the employer is focused not on a generic population but rather on one man with a specific health condition exposed to specific act that the employee deems 'harmful' acts to himself. So unlikely the experts will be helpful. Plus remembering its a reasonablness test to balance the need to have someone who can do individual tasks and the employee insisting he cant do the taaks/ role in its current form.

The outcome should be the same because its always asking if there is one more reasonable step which the employer can take to keep the employee in the role or even in any job which the employee could carry out with their limited ability.

The employer problem is to make sure they have actually taken the steps which are reasonable.

But remember, this employee feels very protected by their managers. There seems to be little understanding of professionalism and boundaries there at all.

I think that that team would be rather shocked if someone from M&S Corporate took them aside and pointed out the lack of professionalism and that actually this was out of line. I wonder if any negative feedback will be considered transphobic by the team and cause a great deal of employee disruption.

Surely M&S or any other employer would be less than enthralled by an employee writing long social media posts about an incident at work which has attracted negative media attention.

In a comparable situation I don't think I'd be posting all the details on Reddit.

I mean I suspect there will be media watching this subject thanks to the antics of some anyway.

Why is this employee talking about this at all on social media thus likely resulting it in all blowing up AGAIN for the company?

I would be hauling his backside in over it and thowing the social media policy at him.

Yes it’s strongly implied by him that he was. He specifically mentions putting them away after he “thought nothing of it”.

the mother has said that a few things in the post indicate it’s possibly true but also some outright lies

The detail of him carrying a load of bras?

So he could have been holding bras when he asking her if he could help?

Here is a link to the full text on Reddit with comments

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1mtwx8t/ms_trans_employee/

Even if he is the employee in question, the retelling of the story was never going to be simple and vague.

Never retell a story without an 'an everyone cheered' part.. And youve got to admit the vision of torn up daily mails across the food hall is a dramatic ending.

the mother has said that a few things in the post indicate it’s possibly true but also some outright lies

https://x.com/doejane1971/status/1957700891923894390?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

AnSolas, thanks for the clear explanation of the employment law

It is interesting that the fragility and need for affirmation might be classed as a mental health issue.

When I try to think it through in relation to trans I end up wondering if gender transition is a protected characteristic are the mental health issues that characterize some transitioners also protected?

Transitioning is protected but if, for example, you have to deal with dementia patients and suffer extreme mental anguish if they misgender you, is this behavior also protected as part of your transitioning?

National newspapers go out to retailers on a ‘Sale or Return’ basis so that manager must’ve personally paid for all the ones their branch destroyed (or alternatively it’s just a fantasy from inside this shop assistants head).

www.abc.org.uk/reporting-standards/national-newspapers/retail-sales-sale-or-return

Tbf to M&S up untill 5 min ago the idea that they needed to tell male staff not to speak to 14 year old girls about their underwear was a very 70's/80'' look. I am sure some of the Carry On movies had how not to be a pervy at work as a theme.

However as a large player in one of the few industry to still employ children they should have some type of child safeguarding policy for managing corporate interactions with children. So the principles on dos and donts should be written up by "someone".

Yes

This type of employee would be covered under the Equality Act 2010.

They would be classed as having a disability due to poor mental health. Which is different from their being in the process of gender reassignment and having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

The laws recognises that the employees need to earn a living is a fundemental need. (No money no food or shelter etc)

So the EA2010 says that a business must make reasonable adjustments. There is no specifics as to what is "reasonable" as it takes account of all the circumstance.

So the employer has to look at their business the role(not the employee) the expected period of "illness" and the resources needed to keep the employee in "any" role or function.

They would carry out occupational health (OH) assessments and offer Performance Improvement Plans (PIP) etc where they try to keep the employee in the original role or even offer a new/adapted role eg go part-time and hire a second employee or spread tasks among other employees etc.

However the employer can reach as stage where it is just not reasonable as they are paying two people to do the same role as the first employee in not able to sucessfully carry out the tasks.

Its a complex area and normally a long process which has to be carefully documented by the employer but it is possible to "sack an ill employee for cause"

I note, not a WORD about safeguarding customers or reporting something that might indicate a staff member acting inappropriately in anyway that I can see.

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT
OUR COMMITMENT It is right that M&S engages with Governments and policy makers to inform them of our position on issues that affect our customers and colleagues. It is important that this engagement is undertaken within a framework that has been approved by the Corporate Communications and Legal teams.

YOUR RESPONSIBILITY

• Adhere to M&S’ principles of political engagement:
• Neutrality – M&S is politically neutral and we do not have party political affiliations
• Transparency – We are transparent in our political activity and do not attempt to improperly influence any government official or policy maker to gain a business advantage. At all times, every individual involved in political engagement should be comfortable that, if their behaviour or actions were made public, it would not cause concern.
• Customer focused – We do not engage in any political activity which may undermine our customer experience; colleagues and customers come first. We should ensure a customer centric message is part of all our interactions.

HOW TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE

• It is important any contact from Government is flagged to the Head of Public Affairs, who can support in responding. All meetings should be flagged with the Corporate Communications Director or Head of Public Affairs in advance. In the case of Scotland, the Head of Public Affairs will complete the Scottish lobbying register with all instances of ‘regulated lobbying’.

MEDIA AND INVESTOR RELATIONS
OUR COMMITMENT In order to protect M&S’ brand and corporate reputation, all media and investor activity needs to happen within a framework to ensure that any engagement is undertaken by colleagues and named agencies who fully understand our compliance and regulatory requirements as a publicly listed business and M&S’ approved corporate position on key topics. Specifically – all investor and media activity must adhere to The Market Abuse Regulation 2016 and the Financial Conduct Authority’s regulation on market disclosure. To support this, M&S Corporate Communications team operates a 24/7 press office function to manage external enquiries and support colleagues to manage media interest.

YOUR RESPONSIBILITY
Colleagues should not:

• Commit to or undertake any media engagement without approval from M&S External Communications
• Commit to or undertake any investor engagement without the approval of the Investor Relations Team
• Disclose any price sensitive/confidential information to external stakeholders

Colleagues should:

• Defer all media enquiries to the M&S External Communications team or named local agency
• Follow all processes to mitigate against accidental or deliberate disclosure of sensitive information
• Ensure that if they have access to confidential project information or price sensitive information, they are included on the insider list and/or restricted dealing list and complete the relevant training
• Ensure all confidential documents are password protected Ensure all partners & suppliers are aware of this policy

HOW TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE

• Management of the Insider List is undertaken by Corporate Governance
• Corporate Communications work with a third-party agency to run a daily media monitoring service, which highlights unauthorised colleague interaction with the media. Disciplinary action will be undertaken by HR