Should work accept this and work around it or am I supposed to lose my job?

[lppt]

Wasn’t sure how to title this. Basically I am a single parent. I have no help. Dd is 22 months. My office is based in the north but our clients are based all over the place. Mostly meeting are remote which is fine as I can login anywhere. But now and then they will want a meeting in London. This is a 3.5 hour trip each way for me. Since having dd this has not come up. But I’ve now had something diarised for next month and I cannot attend as I won’t be back to collect dd from nursery. I know I could ask a someone to take her back to their home but I don’t actually know anyone well enough that I feel ok with that. I also don’t know if it would be possible. Dd is still very small and would be very confused and possibly scared to be somewhere different after nursery. I can’t do it and I don’t know if I am within my rights to say that? And ask that someone else attends in my place? I know when she’s bigger it will be different but at this age I simply don’t feel ok trying to find someone to take her. The nursery is also very remote and so shed have to travel with someone else too.

Can I object? Or do I have to accept I can’t continue my job? Ex won’t have her. Already tried that.

I’ve answered this in my previous posts on this thread, addressing the legislation, tribunal viewpoint and potentially unfair contract terms (that won’t be upheld).

The fact is OP is a single mother and there is no childcare available. She is unable to travel to London. That is the long and short of it.

Employer can arrange for her to dial in.

What they can’t do is force her to travel and are on shaky grounds if they try to punish her for being unable to travel to this meeting, as that could fall under indirect sex discrimination, which is a protected characteristic as set out in The Equality Act 2010.

I've read all your posts and don't think you have.

You've said they have to let her attend remotely with no ideas as to whether that is appropriate for the type of meeting.
You've said she doesn't have to do travel even if that is explicitly mentioned in her contract. Without any knowledge of her contract. My contract, for example, says that I am expected to do occasional travel and work outside of my normal working hours as business needs dictate. So, according to you, it's fine for me to say I won't ever travel or work outside of business hours, because that's not enforceable?

OP has not even attempted to find any childcare. So saying there is none available is not correct.

I absolutely agree OP should ask for an exemption for this one occasion as she's clearly not in a position to put arrangements in place at this point. But I don't think you are doing her (or other women) any favours to suggest that they just dig their heels in and refuse to do it if it's not convenient. If OP doesn't want to travel, and her employer insists it's part of her job, then she would be better advised to get another job, then refuse to do it.

I don’t really care whether you think I’ve explained it or not. You don’t have to accept my explanation based on professional knowledge. It all comes down to whether it’s reasonable and if it puts her at a disadvantage based on the fact she is a woman.

I’ve summarised the issue in my last post.

It doesn’t matter if your contract says you are expected to travel. If that travel puts you at a disadvantage due to a protected characteristic then it’s not an enforceable contract term. For example disability, religion, and sex (as childcare as mentioned previously would fall under sex) will all have to be considered when applying that contract term. Employers can’t just put anything in a contract and say that’s the rule. It’s has to be compliant with legislation, and often that needs a bit of interpretation. Fairness does not mean treating everyone exactly the same. It means making sure no one is at a disadvantage.

Google is your friend.

I don't think it's unreasonable if this is the first time in a year or more. You can ask, but if they say no I don't think that's unreasonable.

Anyway.

OP discuss it with your employer. If someone else can attend in your place it’s not unreasonable to ask for that. If you can dial in it’s not unreasonable to ask for that. Your employer should explore alternatives with you.

I'd be interested in links to tribunals that back this up as I can't find any.

The law requires reasonable adjustments but if someone can't carry out a key part of their role it is legal to sack them for that. We would need to know much more about the OPs role and this travel in particular to decide. Are you saying a woman employed as a long haul pilot doesn't have to travel if she can't find childcare.

I found a couple of cases, but they seemed to be ones where the woman was asked things outside of her contract.
It's called the childcare disparity and while the need to find childcare itself isn't a protected characteristic, it recognises that (despite some changes) childcare still impacts women (protected char) more than men.
Something like that...I was just skimming.

I think a woman employed as a long haul pilot who found her childcare fell through would have no choice but to take a day of dependant’s leave.

Is it a key part of her role though? OP mentioned asking for someone else to go in her place. That suggests it’s not essential that she attends.

You are right in that there are a number of unknowns but from OPs comments

• this London travel hasn’t been required for several years. Why is this one so essential?
• OPs post suggests that it doesn’t have to be her that attends, someone else could go instead.
• its a long journey - a whole working day just in travel. Is that reasonable?
• Most meetings are held remotely
• She is a single mum with childcare responsibilities which could fall under the equality act

So my point is that if she were punished for not being able to go to London on this one meeting that hasn’t been required for several years, where other meetings have been remote, where other people can potentially attend, it might be hard to justify at tribunal.

There are actually similar rulings at tribunal. Dobson v North Cumbria integrated care NHS foundation made the ruling that tribunals should take judicial notice that women are primary carers and this could limit their availability to work particular hours. This is essential for anyone considering sex discrimination on the grounds of childcare.

Tribunals don’t rule based on identical tribunals - that’s virtually impossible as the circumstances are so unique. Rather they will look at similar cases - might be based on other protected characteristics. I think a tribunal would look at Perkins and Marston Holdings. Don’t let the restructure throw you. the ruling was also based on many other factors, including

• whether the distance was reasonable. OP is not refusing to travel due to childcare. She is happy to travel a reasonable distance.
• -Whether a meeting could be attended virtually - they were previously in this case too.
• Whether it is proportionate to insist that it had to be that staff member to meet business needs, or whether someone else could attend.

There are some really clear points in the discussions and conclusions (published ruling is available online) that other tribunals would looks at using for guidance in similar cases

We are jumping somewhat ahead though! I’d be surprised if OP can’t get a solution on discussing with her manager.

I think I heard somewhere that it’s going to take another 3 generations to level the field. Huge changes since the 60s but still so far to go

edit- side note I just realised that the next 60s are closer than the last 60s and now I’m off to lie down.

You need to arrange adequate childcare. Maybe ask in your local Facebook group if someone knows a childminder that offers adhoc care ?

It could be any number of reasons why the OP can’t dial in. The company has more awareness about the appropriateness of the OP attending in person than you do.

Childcare in London? Child travels with you. Overnight stay in London to ease strain and stress of long distance travel with a small child? Childcare that can be there for you in future?
Can the added expense be put as expenses?

Is there an event or activity that you and your child will enjoy after the meeting that you would not have otherwise been able to attend?

If only for a few hours, any discomfort etc your child may experience due to being with someone new could be offset by a new experience and extended one-to-one time with you having fun. As in, a whole day new experience, not just for the few hours. It may be easier to get back into your routine once home.

Just to add, children can be really surprising as to how they adapt, especially if managed. You know your child best.

Best wishes

But you don’t know if any of what you have said is true. Have you considered that the OP just might have to be at that meeting in person? It is not an unusual request from a business and whilst the OP has my utmost sympathies because it is bloody hard sometimes just sometimes you have to turn up in person

Well she can’t go as she doesn’t have childcare. Which is the point of the questions I’m asking. I’m asking from an HR point of view. The ‘is this necessary’. The stuff tribunals will ask. The stuff we ask to keep our organisations out of tribunal.

A ‘not unusual’ request from a business doesn't mean it’s a reasonable request. It might not be a reasonable request to turn up in person just to show your face or for relationship building. The tribunal I note above actually states that’s not the responsibility of the employee to manage.

You are right there are unknowns and only OP knows these. We will have to see what happens when she updates.

I ended up changing career when my kids were little as I constantly faced this.
I think you need to have an open conversation with your employer and explain that this sort of thing is going to be an issue for some years. If they are happy to work around this with you great. If not, it might be wise to start looking for a sideways move to something with work locations and patterns that are better for you.

It's a really hard one. I live in the north west and know how unreliable trains down south and back are, I'd be worried sick about not getting back. I also would not be leaving a very young child with anyone I did not not know and trust implicitly, certainly not a random teenager.
If your salary makes it possible, you could look at agency nannies etc who would be suitably qualified and vetted.

But having been a working single parent and all that entails, I would seriously consider looking for work that does not require travel.

But it doesn’t mean it’s an unreasonable request either and you don’t know what hat allowances have been made already. As hard as it is the OP will have to at least try to source childcare for the very few times she has to attend a meeting in person. Without knowing the full parameters of what, why and how often you can not make a judgement that she can just dial in. She is facing what most working mothers have faced and somehow you have to find a way of making it work. It’s difficult without question

Say because of childcare issues I can't work from London at the moment unless I bring my child

I’m interested in the idea that women can say that because they have childcare commitments they can basically refuse to do parts of their jobs- even things essential to their job and in a contract of employment- if they so desire. What about shifts or weekends- e.g. in healthcare or social care- where these are part of usual work practices? If every woman with children is simply allowed to opt out of any hours outside of standard 9-5, that would be unworkable. The NHS would crumble overnight. I strongly suspect that it is not universally true, though as neither an employment lawyer nor an hr professional, I do understand I might be wrong.

The reason I think it might not hold true in all cases is that I think it will be reasonable adjustments, and if the employer can show it is not reasonable adjustment/has significant negative impact on the organisation or an essential part of their duties then exemption does not apply.

I am slightly staggered by the idea that women think it is right that they can pick and chose working hours, duties and travel, and that this would be fair to the employer or all the other employees who don’t have children. I think it may not benefit women in the longer run. I mean, if I was an employer I would be seriously considering whether a women with children or of child bearing age could be reliably employed in certain positions- e.g. shift work or if travel was required. Of course, I wouldn’t be able to say that was the reason for appointing other candidates, but I’d be wary.

@jacks11 100% agree. And I say that as someone who worked whilst bringing up a child.

Best to try to find someone like a childminder, friend, who your DC can used to and look after on these trips. Do you use a nursery? X

It would not come under sex discrimination. Sex has nothing to do with it, the issue is she cannot do what is required of her in her job because of childcare issues. The situation would be exactly the same if it were a single father.

I have no advice but I'm a single mum of a 20 month old with very similar circumstances. I haven't found a solution. I am currently exploring ways to go self employed. In the meantime, my DS's Granny (ex's mum) sometimes travels 400 miles to help me if I have to go away with work. Do you have any family you can ask, even that far away?

I think you can talk to your employer but they don't have to accommodate you. Ultimately though, your contractual responsibility is to them but your legal responsibility is to your child. Good luck in finding a solution or a new job. I'm hoping for a career change, which will be challenging with a fulltime job, DS, dog and house but I can't see another way to make things work. Employer's just aren't set up for single parents. Their loss in my view.

I’ve already posted details of a tribunal that disagrees with you, to the extent that the ruling means tribunals MUST consider the childcare disparity. HTH.

You need to replace the word 'women' with 'parent'.
Unless you don't know any working fathers?

@CleverButScatty
Well, my post was in response to a poster who said women- and she specifically mentioned women and not parents- could not be forced to honour the terms of their contracts in the grounds that it would be gender discrimination (being female was the protected characteristic) because women are legally accepted to have childcare duties that men do not. Or rather, it is accepted that childcare responsibilities often fall to women and so this is legally recognised. I assume this applies to single mothers and women who have partners.

I don’t think being a parent is a protected characteristic, so I imagine that if the poster I mentioned is correct that, no, this would not apply to a father (single or part of a couple) and so does not apply to all parents. It solely applies to mothers.