Dscrimination Query

[mrswitzend64]

Hello All,

Many moons ago (years) I went on a course through work that was about discrimination and although most of what was said has faded a little in my memory I think I recall the course trainer saying that a full time worker could be classed as being discriminated against if they were being given work to do just because they are full time ( and always there during opening hours) - Just as if a Part time worker was discriminated against if they weren't being given tasks to do due to their hours / working pattern.

Reason I ask is that whilst I was off these last 2 weeks on Annual Leave, I came back to be asked by the office deputy if I would take on an extra job as the office manager (who is also on leave now for a few weeks, so I've not seen her) had sent the deputy an email "volunteering / suggesting" me for this task in my absence as "she's full time".

Now I don't mind doing the job as it's something and nothing, but I was very annoyed that this was the reasoning behind it. There are also 6 other full timers in the office (4 have been there as long as me and 2 are new). I had to say yes to the new task as the deadline was at the end of the same afternoon that the deputy asked me.

I wanted to get my facts straight before the manager returns to work as I want to nip this in the bud when I speak to her. I am in the union at work but the union lady is also on leave at the moment and I don't know who else to ask. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you

[dannyk13]

I can't see how this is discrimination.The fact that full time was mentioned was probably because a part timer would not be there all the time to manage.

[THECORBYLOON]

You could have refused but you didn't and you don't mind doing the extra work anyway so what is the problem? Could it be that had a part-time been used they would have needed to use additional staff for the other hours?

[ubasses]

It is many moons since I did my Employment Law course, but found this on line.
An employer has defence for discrimination if he can demonstrate the following:
The treatment is to achieve a legitimate objective, such as a genuine business or operational need

The treatment is necessary to achieve that objective and is
A proportionate way to achieve that objective

In this case a part timer would probably not have been able to meet the business operational need if they would be required to be in the office outside their normal hours.

As there are 4 other long serving F/T she probably thought you were the best person for the job, and sent off an Email without thinking carefully enough about her wording.

[mrswitzend64]

Thanks ubasses. Wanted to be sure before I got egg on my face

[gulliver1]

Ain't you lucky to have a full time job, you could resign , I am sure there are plenty more who would love to have your job!

[cassa333]

What was the problem?

I cannot for the life of me see what it is you think is discriminatory.

It would probably be an operational need that dictates who steps in for anyone else. Would you like someone else to step in and get a temp assignment that shows an ability to work at a higher level?

[Prudie]

Blimey if I was one of equal 6 and got picked to be the stand-in manager I'd feel chuffed and valued. Can't get my head round your issue at all. Perhaps you weren't the right choice on reflection?

[THECORBYLOON]

PRUDIE, I think when she says, "extra job as the office manager etc" the "as" means "because"...

[Prudie]

Oh I see, that paints a whole new scenario, re-reading it with 'because' you would be right

[cassa333]

Nip what I the bud? Being asked to do a bit extra? Being given, on the face of it, a bit of responsibility? Being picked over someone else for an extra job?

Honestly I still don't see what your problem is.

[atalanta]

If you have an employment contract, you will probably find it lists the main duties of the post, and adds at the end " and other jobs as reasonably assigned by the manager". Or words to that effect.
If you signed that or something similar, there is nothing to complain about.

[New Judge]

It is not against the law to "discriminate" against somebody because they are full or part time.

[THECORBYLOON]

NJ why is there The Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 then?

[New Judge]

Yes quite right, Corby. But it is arguable that it is "discrimination". "Less favourable", yes. I suppose it is a matter of semantics really.

[Hopkirk]

Just ask for more money due to the extra responsibility.

[cassa333]

I still don't know what the OP is complaining about.

Is it a perceived injustice on all the other people who could have done the job?