Husband’s female colleague’s issue being taken very seriously.

[Sweetmarzipan]

So background. DH works in a fairly male dominated industry.

When he first started in this company he would be away fairly often. One or two nights away every 4/6 weeks. One week in April and the odd conference.

I almost always went with him if I could for no other reason than the free hotel. If there were other colleagues they would have have their spouses with them as well. We became friends with many of them and still socialise. Irrelevant to my post but we always had separate bills and we never exploited expenses and we never saw other colleagues do this either but obviously the room was the same price regardless of occupancy.

Covid came along and other ways of doing things came about so audits etc were done remotely and these trips are now few and far between.

Last week I did join him for the first time in probably 6 months. He was leaving the centre with a male colleague in his fifties and a female colleague (mid thirties but I don’t know if anyone will find ages relevant) who had joined the company around three to six months ago (DH and colleague differ on the dates).

As they left to check into hotel the female colleague asked if they were eating, but they said that they had their wives with them and the male colleague said that she was welcome to join them but she declined. We had booked a pub meal on our own.

They were all together on Friday but over the weekend she has made a complaint suggesting that I and the other colleague’s wife had deliberately tagged along as they believed she would be unprofessional and inappropriate.

An email has now gone out saying that spouses are no longer able to tag along.

Colleague was spoken to face to face and the bosses did seem apologetic. DH was on a site and saw the email and was phoned by one of the directors again with apologies.

Surely she should have been told about the culture of the company. I am really gobsmacked. Two other wives have texted me this morning and they feel the same. We had a really nice lifestyle there which is bound to have created a nice work environment.

yes it makes me think either it wasn’t actually company policy at all and the two men are being disingenuous or for reasons unknown someone didn’t want this lady to know she could bring someone along to keep her company in the evening. It’s an extremely strange situation. Why anyone would think it’s the female colleague fault for spoiling this perk she didn’t even know about is anyone’s guess.

I wouldn’t go as far to say I can’t think of anything worse, and I’d go with my OH if it was somewhere fancy or a length of time away.

But I wouldn’t put so much effort into hanging out with my DH’s colleagues. I have my own colleagues to build relationships with, and I feel us having our own thing enriches our relationship.

Each to their own though, but just don’t claim it is valuable to the company.

It’s not a guides camping weekend.

It’s adults staying in hotel accommodation that is subject to industry regulations and relevant safety precautions and thus safety is assumed. You are obsessed by health and safety/safeguarding. It isn’t relevant here beyond ensuring the hotel booked is safe and booked according to company policy (which means it will likely have been on a vetted list, where its compliance with the above regulations has been checked and certified). H&S may extend to ensuring female staff are safe - so no late working, working alone, or after dark etc.

I find it hard to believe that inviting spouses on work trips isn’t distracting and think it kills any attempts at team building stone dead.

Again - not all work trips are about team building. And why would a spouse be more distracting on a work trip than regularly at home.

For many it’s the same away as at home - do the job, end of work go ‘home’ - turn up next day repeat.

I’ve been sent with a team of colleagues to deliver training at regional offices and you are paid to do the day’s training just the same as in the main office. Then travel to the next site and repeat.

Just because we are a group of colleagues away from home changes nothing about the job - did anyone bring a partner? I have absolutely no idea because I had my own plans and so did everyone else. We were even staying in different hotels or with friends if we knew someone in the city.

Occasionally has a quick drink after work but no different to how it was in the main office.

No need for any kind of team building after hours.

We do both. DH is away a great deal so it's lovely for us not to be separated for months on end all the time.

I find it creates distance in thr group, the person who has the spouse ends up spending the evening with them and not socialising with colleagues.

it is usually the wife as well who is tagging along.

But when you’re working away from home you don’t want to socialise with colleagues do you? It hasn’t been on any job description I’ve ever had.

Why is it a problem if they aren't socialising? They wouldn't be if the were in the office. This isn't a networking event we're talking about. It's performing their normal roles in another location. They'll all be back in the office with all the other staff who didn't come along and didn't socialise with them in a few days.

The idea that work own you to the extent they are reasonable to try to push you into socialising how they want rather than how you want seems far more 1950s than spouses tagging onto a work trip.

And what's to say that they don't have an annual travel insurance policy? Most people who go away more that once a year do in my experience. Or have a policy in with their bank accounts.

You seem to be clutching at straws and claiming them to be a gotcha

And she's not staying in the travelodge all day either

We're all at work all day, whether on a work trip or not. So because your spouse has a job then there's no point seeing them from Monday to Friday by your reasoning? I personally like coming home from work and having dinner with DH, but you do you.

Agree - my DH has come home in the evening between trips literally to have a couple of hours with me before bed - a meal, a cuddle (with the dogs) the next episode in whatever box set we are bingeing. Then up at 530 and back to work the next day. Why? Because he loves me and likes to see the kids if they are around. Even if this means he has to scroll emails while I serve up or sit with him on the sofa. And again, why? Because, as much as he enjoys the challenge of the job, the travel etc, he ultimately works to give us a good life now and in retirement and pay for university in the next few years. He and I will grab whatever hours we can simply because he not only loves us but LIKES us and enjoys being with us. I find it a bit sad that so many people are just relieved to have time to themselves, away from the partner they chose to build a life with, that they actively welcome the respite from their relationships. (I do get that time away from kids is very welcome at times though. 🤣)

or the colleague found the thread...

People have turned this thread into I love my husband & it doesn’t seem you do.

Whereas what’s actually happened in this company is several plus ones have all built a social life around the company. So much so that the OP describes it as a nice lifestyle that she feels contributes positively to the company, a company she doesn’t work for.
Thats potentially difficult for new joiners.

Going out as group on a work trip raises potential issues, new joiners can go to HR with claims of bullying/exclusion. It’s not necessarily akin go a group going out on a Saturday night which is without any doubt personal time.

I look forward to coming home to my husband & kids and I enjoy the sense of accomplishment that work gives me, I have built a social life with my own colleagues. It doesn’t mean I’m some sort of corporate slave or that I put the company above all else.

And it’s perfectly possible to have a great marriage & enjoy a night away alone. It’s doesn’t mean you hate your husband or that your marriage is somehow less than.

The work trips in question are normally a night or two, or sometimes a week.

I think most people can be away from their spouse for a night or two. If you can’t I wouldn’t see that as a good thing. That’s not the reason the OP gave in any case.

Posted without comment (since I bet it gets some 😀

⚖️ Key legal angle: “Work-related” ≠ only at work
Under UK law, work events, business trips, hotels, and meals connected to work are usually still treated as an extension of the workplace.
So even though this happened in the evening, it can still fall within employer responsibility.
🚩 Why the complaint raised legal risk

1. Potential sex discrimination / exclusion

The female colleague could argue that:

• She was excluded from informal networking/socialising
• Male colleagues had built-in social support (their wives) while she was alone
• This created a different experience based on gender

Even if unintentional, this can be framed as:

• Indirect discrimination (a workplace practice disadvantaging one group)

1. “Boys’ club” perception risk

Male-dominated industries are already higher risk areas. The allegation that wives attended to “police behaviour” could be interpreted as:

• A suggestion that men behave differently around women
• Reinforcing a gendered environment
• Making the female colleague feel:
• judged
• unwelcome
• or singled out

That perception alone can be enough to trigger risk.

1. Harassment threshold is low

Under the Act, harassment doesn’t require intent. If she felt:

• uncomfortable
• undermined
• or that her professionalism was questioned

…it could potentially meet the definition of unwanted conduct related to sex.

1. Unequal access to opportunities

Work trips often include:

• informal discussions
• networking
• visibility with senior staff

If spouses are present:

• some employees may feel less able to participate freely
• especially newer or younger staff

This can be framed as:

• unequal access to career-related interactions

1. Inconsistent / unwritten practices

The biggest employer risk here is:

• There was no clear policy
• The “culture” wasn’t formally communicated
• New joiners weren’t prepared for it

Tribunals often focus on: “Was this handled consistently and fairly for all employees?” A vague culture = higher legal exposure. 🤝 Why the company reacted quickly The company likely:

• Did not agree with the complaint fully
• BUT recognised the legal risk if it escalated

So they:

• introduced a blanket rule (no spouses)
• apologised informally
• tried to remove future ambiguity

This is a classic risk-management move, not necessarily an admission of wrongdoing. 🧭 Reality check From a practical (non-legal) perspective:

• What you describe sounds like a longstanding, friendly norm
• No evidence of bad intent
• Others clearly enjoyed it

But legally:

• Perception + imbalance + lack of clarity = risk

🧩 The core issue in one line It’s not about you attending — it’s about: whether the setup could be seen as creating a different or uncomfortable environment for a colleague because of gender

Posted without comment (since I bet it gets some 😀

My only comment is that it's really lazy posting AI output.

No - people are pushing back against the ‘why would the OP even want to go/why would any normal bloke want his wife there sometimes’ comments. And the ‘I personally want to be away from my spouse regularly/ look forward to working away for this reason’ comments which contain a significantly snide undertone that workers who don’t feel the same have been expressly stated to be ‘weird’.

They aren’t and the reasons for OP and her DH enjoying this previous perk shouldn’t need to be justified to all the superior posters who are so professional and so independent that they, themselves, don’t want their partners with them on these trips.

It was a perk OP/DH enjoyed and until this individual employee arrived it was accepted practice. It’s a shame that it’s been vetoed in response to one single complaint and without consultation and OP is NBU to feel hacked off and her DH is not U to feel offended on a personal and professional level for the implied impropriety towards this new member of staff. Their professional integrity is being questioned. Whilst the spousal visits may never be on the table again going foreward, I would personally, if I were her DH and the other male employee, take this up and push back as it is almost misandrist sexism being displayed by the female staff member and then condoned by the company.

I wish MN would bring in a policy of no long AI posts.

I just think when you go away with work, there's an expectation that in the evening you eat with colleagues. Perhaps this is different in other industries but both DH and I are expected to do this. It would be extremely weird and antisocial to do something else, as lame as it might be it's seen as an opportunity to socialise/bond with colleagues (not colleagues + spouses).

I think she is used to this because that will be the norm at most companies so she was surprised their spouses were present. Of course it would be awkward as hell to tag along as a single female with two older male colleagues and their wives so no wonder she felt put out.

Oh generally I'd agree, However 812 posts in, no one else thought of it. Which doesn't make it wrong.

Actually it's very likely to be wrong considering AI hallucinates stuff all the time. I'd be much more inclined to believe a poster who seems to know their stuff.

I’ve seen a handful of those comments at most of this thread. I’ve also seen several of the smug oh but unlike a significant number of people on MNs I actually love my husband.

And these are short trips and the Op isn’t there “sometimes”, she’s there a significant % of the time if not every time pre Covid.

And people saying things like my presence contributes positively to my husband’s welfare as an employee, and he needs me at the end of the day. Fair enough for trips of significant length. For short trips it doesn’t apply. Or if it does there is an unhealthy level of co dependency that you can’t function away from your spouse for a night or two so much so that you need them everytime you go away.

I don’t think it’s unfair to the Op or anyone else to point out that the OP’s language suggests that she & many others seemed v entrenched in a company they don’t work for & why that might be problematic.

Most companies change perks all the time without consultation with employees, it’s employment not a democracy. It may not even have been an official perk, rather something that was overlooked.

I agree husband should follow up to protect his reputation and ensure that the complaint is bottomed out.

It’s not even a perk - it costs the employer sweet fuck all.

I think that point has been done to death on this thread. The OP’s “given us a nice lifestyle” suggest she saw it as a good thing.

Prove it wrong.