Workplace toilets - ACAS

[Hearwegoagain]

I am about to discuss with my employer their policy on workplace toilets.

The policy says transgender people may use the toilet of their acquired gender.

I am concerned about this as it changes single sex toilets into mixed sex ones, and no-one has been informed of this. I have found the legislation on workplace toilet provision, which seems pretty clear that our current single sex toilets do not meet the criteria to be 'unisex' as they have cublicles not floor to ceiling doors.

I know they have based the policy on Stonewall's guidance, so I have been searching for balanced guidance on workplace toilets which factors in the fact that people (especially women) probably prefer single sex facilities.

I really want to be balanced and I appreciate that the employer has a duty not to 'out' someone as the opposite sex (particularly if they have a GRC). My workplace does have a few unisex toilets.

However was extremely disappointed to find this guidance from ACAS:

www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/6/7/Gender_reassignment_discrimination_Nov.pdf

It not only states that employers should have a policy that allows trans employees to use the toilets of their new gender, it does not mention at all that others may have protected characteristics which mean this is a problem for them, and it presents what in my view is an extremely unlikely example of three women physically abusing a transwoman (p27 and 28).

Anyone fancy joining me in writing to ACAS to ask them to be more balanced?

And does anyone have any neutral, balanced sources of a more sensible policy?

But is it even relevant. Contrary to what you may read here, there aren't many transgender people in the workplace, and bigger employers eg where my friend works with a trans man made specific provision to use a separate;with sink included) toilet (disabled but no one ever used it before). We have unisex anyway, no big deal

No big deal to you. A big deal to someone who can't use it for whatever reason.
The irony is that people who claim to be inclusive are the most exclusive group of all.

We have unisex anyway, no big deal

And where facilities are single sex, trans people can use the services provided for their sex. As they have since women's public facilities were created.

You're quite right, of course, it's no big deal.

ChattyLion not quite. Employers have to ensure their employees are not discriminated against. Single-sex toilets have long been identified as a requirement for women to be able to fully participate, hence they are a workplace requirement above a certain number of employees.

I had a chat not so long ago with a longstanding unionist and women's rights campaigner whose own promotion was denied for seven years because there was no female toilet where she would have then worked. This was some thirty years ago and a clear case of discrimination on the basis of sex.

There are in fact rules and regulations that require employers who provide multi-entry facilities to ensure these are single-sex (i.e. usual room with several cubicles and sinks).

So, never forget that the existing rules stipulate female-only must be provided unless facilities are unisex (i.e. single entry, self-enclosed cubicle with sink).

Single-sex exemptions are already invoked in providing these. However, after about five to nine years of being wrongly advised as to the Equality Act (this stems from TRA disappointment at the GRA being for transsexuals only with the EqA then continuing the theme), employers have increasingly adopted policies allowing non-GRC-males access.

Now the reason why it is important to remember that established, existing policy is female only is because any proposals for a change in policy must evaluate the impact on protected groups. As we now know this is done via Equality Impact Assessments.

My friend has been leading one of them for more than a year now (NHS). It involved a questionnaire, several brochures setting out the policy proposals, over 500 responses from the public, a large number of public meetings involving protected groups, communities and individuals and private consultations with over a thousand individuals from the major user groups. They're still nowhere near finished. But that is what is supposed to happen. As with all of these processes they have learned about impacts they had not anticipated and are now working on finding compromise (within the usual financial restraints).

So EQIAs are nothing new or unusual, they are a bog standard way of looking at how planned changes will affect people. Few employers will have to go through such an extensive, protracted process, but go through it they must becausr no employer is allowed to discriminate against protected groups. The issue is that we must now show them that that is what they are doing and remind them of due diligence and due process.

If you feel safe to do so.

Interesting that the EHRC link doesn’t mention GRCs at all. Almost as though providers shouldn’t rely on that as burden of proof for a trans person to access a service or space.

Does everyone have to do an equality impact assessment or is it public sector only?

Thanks Charley, that’s really helpful.

We have 2 toilets available, they are unisex, sanitary provision in both.

Its basically a large room, with toilet, sink and sanitary

Whats the problem?

Greenkit no problem with those (aside hygiene issues if you're unlucky).

Unisex facilities are lawful and perfectly fine. The problem lies with turning facilities that several people use at the same time from the standard and required single-sex to mixed-sex facilities.

Herewegoagain AFAIK, public sector does, as well as all organisations who deliver some kind of service to the public.

Other employers are supposed to have equality policies in place and are advised to check if proposed policy changes (workplace changes like the toilets or working hours) affect employees with a protected characteristic.

The reason why most employers do this is because we are all protected under the EqA and if we are discriminated against, we can initiate precceedings to pursue the issue. Not considering the needs and rights of women when trans policies are implemented is a clear demonstration of discrimination against women. We just have to argue our case. ("just" ha!)

The big problem we have is that where workers are unionised, the unions are supposed to help us fight this, but they have unbeknownst to us been captured.

GC unionists are now building a network to tackle this madness within the unions, which has almost entirely bypassed female union members and is almost entirely rejected by those female members when they are become aware.

Unfortunately, many GC union members have often been fighting this battle in an increasingly hostile work and union environment and are extremely cautious now, so this is an understandably careful and therefore slow process.