Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Pregnant RAF officer awarded £16,000 for discrimination

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Pregnant RAF officer awarded £16,000 for discrimination

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 4th Jun 2010, 10:30
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: KORR somewhere
Posts: 378
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Pregnant RAF officer awarded £16,000 for discrimination

A female officer in the Royal Air Force (RAF) has been awarded more than £16,000 after she was removed from her post because she was pregnant.

An employment tribunal found the officer - who chose not to be named because she still serves in the RAF - suffered discrimination, and the force had unintentionally created "an intimidating, degrading, hostile or offensive environment for her".

Link
plans123 is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2010, 10:35
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Wilts
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pregnant RAF officer awarded £16,000 for discrimination

This article explains why in a bit more detail.
Bladdered is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2010, 10:38
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Middle England
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Jeez, you really would have thought that the Armed Forces should have learned by now!
Jumping_Jack is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2010, 10:53
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Devon UK
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It would be interesting to know the thinking behind the decision to return her to the UK.

Wonder if her work had suffered due to the pregnancy? Might have been some good intentions there.

As written , the article makes the MOD/RAF look very wrong.
Vitesse is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2010, 10:56
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Jeez, you really would have thought that the Armed Forces should have learned by now
They have.. 16 grand to get rid of the fat waddling bint and replace her with some normal shaped totty seems like money well spent















OK, OK.... It was a JOKE!!
Flyt3est is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2010, 11:01
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It would be interesting to know the thinking behind the decision to return her to the UK.
Falklands is classed as operational - pregnant is not compatible with ops and the default answer is to be sent home - the default answer since I can remember.

From another angle - how could the MoD possibly ensure the proper antenatal care for the individual when deployed? It is a part of life when non-military medical care takes the lead and therefore outside the normal deployed med centre.
Mr C Hinecap is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2010, 11:05
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Behind a dusty desk, and in some really hot, dusty, wet and cold places subject to who is paying the bill. But mostly Gods own land.
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't think this makes the MOD look bad at all, as the judgment says they "unintentionally created a situation..." I think we have a situation where the MOD has done what it thought was best, removing the officer from a remote base back to the UK but "unintentionally" got it wrong as it affected her promotion opportunities...

If this was a case of the MOD being outright in the wrong the damages would have been a dam sight bigger that 16K!

I think the judgement is correct when it says that each case should be assessed on it's merits, I couldn't see this judgement being made if said officer had been in Afghanistan as removing her from the war-zone would be proportional... no employer will get it right, and with the MOD's glacial rate of change it's nice to see that they are at least heading in the right direction and trying!

As a side note: if the MOD hadn't stationed her with her husband I wonder of this situation could have been avoided.
Miles Gustaph is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2010, 11:16
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: these mist covered mountains are a home now for me.
Posts: 1,784
Received 29 Likes on 12 Posts
Probably not, as you don't need your husband to get pregnant.
Runaway Gun is online now  
Old 4th Jun 2010, 11:31
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I can't help but think that there must be antenatal care in the Falklands for the local population.
RileyDove is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2010, 12:03
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"I can't help but think that there must be antenatal care in the Falklands for the local population."

There is.

Its called a Vet.
Jabba_TG12 is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2010, 12:26
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,807
Received 270 Likes on 109 Posts
Nice one, Jabba! Made oi larrff....

When the officer revealed to her superiors that she was 12 weeks pregnant, her request to stay in her desk-based job in the Falkland Islands was rejected, despite her RAF officer husband being based on the same island.

She was ordered to return to the UK immediately, and forced to take leave to return to the Falkland Islands to visit her husband. Her leave meant she missed out on a performance review which then delayed her promotion prospects.

In light of the case the employment tribunal recommended the Ministry of Defence (MoD) should carry out individual risk assessments for pregnant women and consider adjusting their roles to enable them to remain in their posts, and should establish a monitoring process in respect of any removal of a pregnant woman from her post. A performance appraisal for each pregnant woman commencing maternity leave should also be undertaken, it advised.
Hardly rocket science to consider individual cases individually, one would think. Far more 21st century than some dumb 'befehl ist befehl' so-called default reaction.

Mind you, any preggy lady travelling in a LandRover to Stanley from Base Area Gringo for ante-natal care would probably find the birth induced before she got half-way.....
BEagle is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2010, 13:00
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: planet earth
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
NICE ONE JABBA

Her leave meant she missed out on a performance review which then delayed her promotion prospects.
This means that just about every aircrew mate in the RAF must be owed a promotion and if so, how exactly did it delay the process ?

I think its a bit strong to have to take leave to go back to the FI, but I would love to know the real story behind this...

At the end of it, FI is an operational det, so I pity the MoD on this one as you can just imagine the headlines if they had retained her and she had lost / delivered the baby.....
c130jbloke is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2010, 13:42
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Falklands is classed as operational - pregnant is not compatible with ops and the default answer is to be sent home - the default answer since I can remember.

From another angle - how could the MoD possibly ensure the proper antenatal care for the individual when deployed? It is a part of life when non-military medical care takes the lead and therefore outside the normal deployed med centre.
Mr Hinecap - The Falklands may be classified as an operational det but the FACT that they have married quarters there, and have had for years, suggests that the 'operational' threat is deemed low. Service wives have given birth in the Falklands at the local hospital described below. The only difference (that i can see) in her being at home base and pregnant, or the Falklands and pregnant - is the classification of 'operational' to the det.

Primary and secondary health care facilities are based at the King Edward VII Memorial Hospital (KEMH) in Stanley, the only hospital in the Islands. It is a 27-bed hospital with a small accident and emergency department, an acute ward with a two-bedded intensive care unit, an isolation unit, and a maternity bed. KEMH has a full range of medical, dental, nursing (including midwives and community nurses), allied health professional staff and engineering, qualified to UK standards or recognised equivalents. Wherever possible, the hospital adheres to UK standards/guidelines for medical practice - So all good there then.
Justanopinion is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2010, 14:28
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Going deeper underground
Age: 55
Posts: 332
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As a serving officer, she would be on short notice to move, along with everyone else on strength Down South, in the event that our South American cousins want their share of the oil and fishing rights. This is not compatible with being pregnant. So the rules say she has to go back to the UK.

One size rarely fits all, however. She is on an accompanied tour and, presumably, in OFQs with her hubby. So a considered solution might be:
  • Put her on a career break unitl she starts maternity leave and leave her in theatre with hubby, like any non-serving spouse Down South.
  • Provide ante-natal care locally.
  • Mobilise her nominated replacement, who would be going there early if she were non-effective for some other reason (run-over, burst appendix, unidentified drinking injury, etc) and is already warned off for that purpose.
  • Write her det report based on what she has achieved so far. MOD 2020C replaces OJAR for the period and, when she gets back to work from maternity leave, her next OJAR picks up the slack.
She gets to stay with hubby, gets looked after, hubby doesn't end up finding solace in the nearest WRAF ops clerk whilst drinking himself inside out, and she still gets presented to the next promotion selection board. The only costs are the replacement's early deployment and her slightly thin report. Job jobbed.
orgASMic is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2010, 15:47
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where-ever nav's chooses....
Posts: 834
Received 46 Likes on 26 Posts
That sounds like the sensible solution....

tell me, are you still serving?!
alfred_the_great is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2010, 15:54
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Essex
Age: 53
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What we don't know is when she was due to return to the UK? She might have been too far gone to fly and then would have sued the MOD for making her have a benny!
maliyahsdad2 is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2010, 16:02
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Why oh why would I wanna be anywhere else?
Posts: 1,305
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The bloody Service went to hell in a handcart once they decided that WRAFs couldn't be chucked out when they got themselves up the duff.

She'd probably spent the time since getting rooted whinging and moaning about morning sickness etc etc etc and not doing the job that she was paid for (despite all the PC leaning backwards) and her bosses got royally p*ssed off with her.

If they want to play in a man's world then they should play by the rules.
sisemen is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2010, 16:40
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Devon UK
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks to C Hinecap for his earlier reply.

As someone else said, the real story would be interesting.

Are there any female civilian desk workers at the base? Wonder how might they be treated in a similar situation?
Vitesse is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2010, 17:45
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This is ridiculous and frankly she should be ashamed of herself for suing the MOD. I can't believe that taking leave affected her promotion prospects and if it did then she wasn't forced to take leave.

My wife also serves in the RAF and was due to go to the FI when she found out she was pregnant, she was very keen to get an 'operational' tick done but the call was that she couldn't go. Whilst there is a level of care in FI it isn't to the level available in the UK, particularly for complications or emergencies, and what is more important than the health of your growing baby!!!!

She now hasn't been OOA and will only have a year left on her return to work, so her chances of a PC or any other form of extension in the leaning RAF she will return to is very low - perhaps we should try and get some quick cash that could be buying body armour or a desperaty needed extra flying hour for someone trainging for ops..... Of course not. The lady in question was not disadvantaged, the RAF ensured that as soon as it knew she was pregnant it protected her and her unborn baby - even if she chose then to fly for god knows how many hours to somewhere with limited facilities to care for emergencies with very young feutous's (sp?)

I'm sorry if it sounds strong but I think the RAF put my wifes needs first and has been very supportive with excellent provisions compared to many other companies. This is a very similar situation to my wife's, almost identical so I feel pretty entitled to my view- it makes me angry when I think peole are just out to get money!
Talk Reaction is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2010, 18:13
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: An Ivory Tower
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This is a very similar situation to my wife's, almost identical so I feel pretty entitled to my view- it makes me angry when I think peole are just out to get money!

So, you also lived in a married quarter in the Falkland Islands and the RAF ordered your wife to move 8 000 miles away from you against your wishes, Geez, small world....
London Eye is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.