Feminism: chat
National Trust lose case after gardener suffered direct discrimination and harassment on grounds of sex
ChristinaXYZ · 04/08/2021 16:28
The full story is in the Telegraph but I would say the moral is not to trust organisations like the National Trust that virtue signal with rainbow lanyards and whatnot to get the basics right when it comes to discrimination. It is hard to see from the article why the central management didn't see fit to investigate what was happening at the house and their acceptance of the judgement is very mealy mouthed.
"Her tipping point came when she was rejected for the job in favour of a male applicant who had scored significantly lower than her during the interview process.
Ms Bryant said the National Trust “completely broke her spirit”. She took the charity to an employment tribunal and has now been awarded £49,297.24 in compensation for unfair dismissal, discrimination and harassment."
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/04/national-trust-broke-spirit-says-chartwell-gardener-won-50k/
Ghosttile · 04/08/2021 16:33
21Bee · 04/08/2021 18:17
The problem with the national trust is lots of the donor families live in them and manage them on the National Trust’s behalf. From experience it’s an absolute scam, I used to be expected to work for months on end without a day off. The trust don’t really know what’s going on at all of the properties really.
AssassinatedBeauty · 04/08/2021 20:53
The National Trust's statement after the judgement is appalling. A spokesman said
“While we are clearly disappointed by the decision, we respect the judgment. However, the judge did make it clear in the remedy judgment that the discrimination was not deliberate and that it was a clear case of unconscious bias.”
As if it being "unconscious" is somehow an excuse or a defence. There's no apology to Ms Bryant, and being disappointed with the decision implies that they don't think they should have lost the case!
ChristinaXYZ · 05/08/2021 15:13
And here's another one. Woke old John Lewis who won't protect women's spaces have not been paying what they should to minimum wage staff and have been named as the worst offender by the government. All this woke washing seems to hide poor employment and customer service practices.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/05/never-knowingly-underpaid-john-lewis-hits-named-britains-worst/
"It was claimed that investigations by HM Revenue & Customs found about £2.1 million was owed to 34,000 workers across all the companies.
At the top of the list was John Lewis, which was said to have failed to pay more than £940,000 to 19,392 workers, the highest of any business named."
It reminds of the premier league where footballers kneeling hides all the other issues and protects clubs from criticism whilst inflaming tensions that weren't there a few years ago. I think players like Ivan Toney of Brentford who says he won't take the knee because it is the players being "used like puppets" are really brave. When will a premier league club throw a tournament and walk away when their players are abused when playing away in Europe. That's what might make a difference - might embarrass UEFA. But no they just woke wash.
nettie434 · 05/08/2021 15:52
@Wrongsideofhistorymyarse
I'm glad she won but she shouldn't have had to go through it in the first place.
I would put this very high up my list of Things I Have Learned in my life too. Agree that all the (Insert name) Awareness Days/Weeks/Months count for nothing in many organisations.
Wishing Claire Bryant all the best in the future. It looks as if she has been badly affected. As for 'tea break gate', that is really shocking. I think unfortunately they probably have a lot of applicants.
I actually heard some researchers presenting their research about NT volunteers. This tribunal shouldn't have come as any surprise to the NT:
www2.le.ac.uk/departments/business/images/research/work-and-employment/a-report-of-the-findings-from-the-national-trust-project
Abitofalark · 05/08/2021 16:38
A tribunal's finding that it was a clear case of unconscious bias isn't an accolade, NT! What a dope to come out with that statement.
That woman was brave to resign and take such a risk in claiming constructive dismissal and then go through the whole gruelling tribunal process. That takes its toll in every way but at least in the end she did win and get compensation. Well done to her but she should never have been put through it.
GreenBlueTack · 05/08/2021 19:14
Doesn't surprise me at all. I worked for them and after I got married I was told that I wasn't allowed any project work incase I went on maternity leave.
I did get pregnant and was told I wasn't allowed to go as it wasn't in my day off and didn't suit business needs. Shortly after myself and my other female colleagues were mysteriously made redundant.
Awful toxic business who claim they are a "charity".
GreenBlueTack · 05/08/2021 19:49
@GreenBlueTack
I did get pregnant and was told I wasn't allowed to go as it wasn't in my day off and didn't suit business needs. Shortly after myself and my other female colleagues were mysteriously made redundant.
Awful toxic business who claim they are a "charity".
That's meant to say I wasn't allowed to go to my maternity appointment as it wasn't on my day off. My manager at the time pointed out this was illegal and got the reply "if doesn't suit the business needs."
MonsignorMirth · 11/08/2021 11:32
Fecking hell, just read the last bit of the Mail article. What arses on top of all that.
The compensation was broken down into seven parts, including a basic award, compensation for loss of earnings, counselling costs, compensation for injury to feelings, and uplift in respect of tax.
However, on July 9 this year, Claire said she received a payment of £41,866.93 from the National Trust - a shortfall of £7,430.31, which she queried. On July 13, she was told via email that the National Trust believes that, in order to comply with HMRC rules, it is obliged to apply an emergency tax code, despite the remedy including an amount to cover tax.
Claire said she will now have to wait until April next year to claim this money back, but she is investigating the deduction. She feels the charity 'just wanted to have the last word'.
AssassinatedBeauty · 11/08/2021 12:11
It explains in the Times article that the second interview, described as an "informal chat", was carried out in front of members of the public, which is completely inappropriate. It also clearly says that at this "informal chat" the person interviewing her raised issues about her personal performance that had never been raised before and where all her previous formal performance reviews had been highly rated. That's obviously totally problematic and inappropriate.
spongedog · 18/09/2021 19:40
I didnt see this thread first time round, but it sounds a partly decent result for the individual under the circumstances.
I was looking for National Trust posts as I have been reading the papers for the NT Members AGM. A couple of quite interesting member resolutions including one about treatment of volunteers. I am also looking at the Elections for the Council. A very interesting candidate SG from a Welsh county has some quite outspoken views as part of their candidate statement, and other candidates are also fairly outspoken. Just wondered if anyone was voting?
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.