Bridget Phillipson now says EHRC single-sex guidance will NOT apply to workplaces

[IwantToRetire]

Ms Phillipson was asked about the ongoing delay in publishing the EHRC guidance on single‑sex spaces.

Ms Phillipson said:

‘There’s no delay, it’s just the process that we are following. I do want to get that good practice out there into the world.

What I would say, however, is the Code of Practice, applies to services and associations. It doesn’t apply to the workplace regulations.

So that really is a matter for the NHS…and how they intend to uphold their responsibilities as an employer.’

‘Alarmed’ Following the meeting, Jennifer Melle, said:

“I am thankful to have had the opportunity to speak to the government about my case. I was alarmed to hear that the long awaited EHRC guidance does not apply to workplaces, however. The government needs to be transparent and someone in authority has to take decisive action.

“I, and nurses across the country, need urgent action from the government so that no nurse has to go through what I have.

Full article https://conservativepost.co.uk/bridget-phillipson-now-says-ehrc-single-sex-guidance-will-not-apply-to-workplaces/

This is something we were aware of, wasn't it?

Lots of the (often sole) businesses writing to the government about the code of practice werent covered by it anyway, unless they were service providers.

This means that any man saying he’s a woman can use the women’s toilets at work. Is that right?

.

I think some will interpret that statement as that they can do what they like (untrue) and others that they have to wait until there are guidelines.

Nope. That is covered by the ‘92 Regs
This is one of the easier bits of explanation:

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/workplace-toilets-know-your-rights/

They may well have been but in the instance of mass employers such as the NHS this is really significant.

I know from on other thread it has been said that existing guidance for employers should be enough - hopefully someone with the real knowledge on this can quote the relevant law.

But even if existing guidelines for employers should be enough, we know they aren't other wise there wouldn't have been, as there has been, women told they have to share facilities with men.

The whole point of the Supreme Court ruling was clarifying that sex means biology.

That's why the EHRC has written updated guidelines, even if it is to clarify that the existing law of work place provision should be applied with the Supreme Court ruling.

I am beginning to wonder what will happen first- the EHRC guidance or Manchester United winning five games in a row.

I see while I was typing someone did supply the relevant guidelines.

So now it needs to be clear to employers that the Supreme Court ruling meanse as it always has that sex is biological.

As we know too many, not just the NHS, have been Stonewalled.

The code of practice for employment was always separate from the code of practice for services, public functions and associations. I thought everyone knew it was only the latter that was being reviewed, although in recent ETs we have seen employers trying to rely on outdated services code for how they should apply the EA as employers, so obviously not.

The code for services, public functions and associations was due for review anyway and was already being reviewed when we got the SC judgment, hence there was a big consultation on all of it and then an additional consultation on just the parts affected by the SC ruling.

As far as I know the statutory code for employment is not even due for review.

Nevertheless, the SC ruling applies throught the EA.

She doesn't want anymore court cases, pure and simple. So she's condoning men changing with female nurses. What a cop out.

I don;t think Frank Illet will be getting his haircut any time soon.
Guidance won't happen under this government.

On the other hand it means all these workplaces that are "awaiting the guidance" will have to pull their fingers out and sort things out.

This guidance was never about workplaces as Pencils notes above - is this a way for the government to claim that the guidance has been altered?

The SP judgement, farce that it was, still determined that to require non consenting women to change with men was harassment and couldn't be allowed to continue. So court cases will continue to demonstrate you can believe all you like in men being allowed to waltz into women's single sex spaces, but it's going to cost you the moment a woman says no.

I thought the ill-fated "interim guidance" waggled its eyebrows suggestively at the Workplace Regulations then had to be changed, or did I dream that?

In any case, the Darlington judgment, while not precedent-setting, clarified that for the Workplace Regulations, sex means sex.

And I don't totally agree with Reindorf that Schedule 3 is completely irrelevant to the workplace situation, because workplaces and services overlap, and it would be weird for them to be different.

What does the HSE think, I wonder?

Ah ok I hadn't twigged there's a different Code of Practice for Employment... So that needs updating too cos it's wrong according to Supreme Court FWD judgement:
17.55 If a worker is undergoing gender reassignment, it is good practice for the employer to consult with them sensitively about their needs in the workplace and whether there are any reasonable and practical steps the employer can take to help the worker as they undergo their gender reassignment process. For further information on gender reassignment, please refer to paragraphs 2.21 to 2.30 and 9.31 to 9.33.
Example: A worker will soon be undergoing gender reassignment treatment and the employer has accepted that they want to continue working throughout the transition process. To avoid unresolved questions about which toilet facilities the worker should use, their uniform and communications with other members of staff, the employer should arrange to discuss the situation sympathetically with the worker. The discussion could cover setting a date for using different facilities and uniform; the timescale of the treatment; any impact this may have on the worker’s job and adjustments that could be made; and how the worker would like to address the issue of their transition with colleagues.
from employercode.pdf

Guess that is on EHRC's To Do list once they get the Services CoP over the line, when Bridget Philipson pulls her finger out and eventually does her job!

I do wish HSE would be definitive on this, would save a lot of aggro for employers & employees if they'd just step up.

From EHRC newsletter "EHRC Chair, Dr Stephenson spoke to the Press Association.... discussed the importance of acquired gender following the Supreme Court ruling."

A ruling that humans can NOT change sex, means a human can NOT
'transition' from one sex to the other.

Therefore, 'acquired gender' is a meaningless concept, not an "important" one. Everyone without exception is and will always be the sex they were born, and the law must be interpreted as meaning birth sex.

Clearly the transactivists who have politicians by the throat intend to continue challenging Supreme Court.
'

For those who appreciate a hollow laugh, the EHRC email puts the item third from the top of today's newletter, as a single paragraph, inviting any readers to press the link to "Read the news articles here".... The link only opens for Guardian readers ! Anyone else is challenged and ordered to either Subscribe or Submit. i.e. either give money to the Guardian, or else submit to " personalised advertising and all cookies". .

Did any of us suspect that the uni-think bubble in Whitehall excluded any input except from the civil servant's bible, the Guardian? In theory, EHRC is representing everyone in the country, but this shows they don't even pretend to represent anyone outside their own tiny closed-mind group.

Philipson's trying to placate the danger-haired activists & 50 of the dafter MPs on her side of the House by bleating about Workplace regs? Fair enough, we all know what they say & we all know they are relevant to female, ie; equal, participation in the workforce.
I get that being on the Front Bench might make her feel special & precious, but if she can't be arsed to do her job I have a suggestion for her - the back benches or the Chiltern Hundreds.

@logiccalls Accept cookies or subscribe is SOP for most UK newswebsites. The Graun's the only former broadsheet that isn't paywalled by default.

I think you've got it the wrong way round. If it is the Guardian article I think it is, it is one of many published at the same time, which were discussed on quite a long thread.

The articles were all based on the same interview with MAS and the Guardian chose to make the emphasis the MAS wasn't as confrontational as Lady Falkner.

Also, as more on FWR must know by now if you have the link to an article just paste it into archive.is and you will probably find it save in full.

And in that way we could assess your comment based on the Guardian article you reference!

PS - no supporter of the Guardian but you can just sign up to read the Guardian online without spending a penny (not that many of us do that any more today!)

I think worse than that she said this in an interview with Jennifer Melle who had found out that work place guidance doesn't work for women.

Reminder to myself, never again post extracts from an article just give the link, so that all aspects of what was said are part of the discussion not the random paragraphs chosed for an OP!

I have an employment tribunal starting in five weeks which should tackle this issue - can an employer delay offering genuinely single-sex facilities whilst waiting for EHRC guidance. My view is they should just follow the law. More details on CrowdJustice.com, search for Faye Russell-Caldicott.

WTAF

Why is Phillipson making such a hash of this!
We need this to apply to workplaces. I can complain more freely in a random cafe or business that I am just visiting in my leisure time about men in women’s spaces.

It is much much harder for women to speak up in our own workplaces when the entitled men come in to the women’s toilets because there is so much more pressure not to rock the boat. The entitled men may be our bosses, the HR person, their BFFs or more. All employees and employers must get very clear lines from this.

I’m absolutely fed up with this nonsense. The government need to step up and deal with this properly and stop prevaricating and muddying the waters.

Dear Ms Philipson,

I am a woman and I want my fucking stuff back.

Is that too hard to understand?

I was amazed that 1992 legislation didn’t apply to schools. However the ‘mother’ to the 1992 is 1974 legislation. That does cover schools and much more. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA), is where employers have a duty of care to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that visitors (non-employees) are not exposed to health and safety risks.