Bristol worker claims boss 'forced her from job she loved'
A Bristol recruitment consultant is taking her former boss to a tribunal, after claiming she was forced out of the job she loved because she wanted to work part-time after taking maternity leave.
-

Emma Archer
Emma Archer, who has had two babies, gave evidence yesterday at the industrial tribunal where she said her former employers Cavendish Maine, had discriminated against her because she is a woman.
She said the final straw came when she overheard her boss running her down and describing her as "a pain in the neck".
Mrs Archer, who is married to ex-Bristol Rovers player Lee Archer, is claiming sex discrimination, unfair dismissal and discrimination for asserting maternity rights.
If the Bristol tribunal panel rules that she was discriminated against on the grounds of gender there is no limit on the amount of compensation that can be awarded.
Mrs Archer, of Blackcurrant Drive, Long Ashton, also claims that she was not given a contract and that Clifton-based Cavendish Maine was in breach of contract.
She told the industrial tribunal that she was one of the firm's top sales people and loved her job, which she had held since 2002.
She went on maternity leave in January 2005 and, after having her daughter Ava, returned to work three days a week in January 2006.
In September that year she took a second period of maternity leave, returning in October 2007.
Mrs Archer recruited people for the food service industry but in her absence no one covered for her.
She said this contrasted with other women who took shorter periods of maternity leave whose jobs were covered in their absence.
Six weeks after she returned to work she was called in for a chat with boss Nick Hester about how she was getting on and in December, at another meeting, was told she was being considered for redundancy. Mrs Archer told the tribunal: "I was singled out for redundancy because I work part-time. There was no other reason.
"I knew I was one of the best sales people there. I had a lot more experience than staff who had just joined."
Mrs Archer challenged the redundancy and she claimed she was told her job was safe.
But she said she was excluded from meetings and generally made to feel unwelcome.
The final straw came on December 21 last year when the firm's AGM was held at Hunstrete House hotel near Bristol.
In the coach on the return journey Mrs Archer sat in a seat in front of Mr Hester who, she claimed, was drunk and unaware that she was nearby.
She said he was talking about her on his mobile phone in a "horrible way". She said: "He was talking about getting rid of me. He said 'I was watching her, I saw her give Howard filthy looks.. it's disgusting. She's a pain in the neck.
"Let's hope she goes. The sooner the better."
Mrs Archer quit her job saying she had been treated in a "subversive, unreasonable and discriminatory" way.
Cavendish Maine denies that it discriminated against Mrs Maine in any way.
Nick Hester and other staff were due to give evidence at the Bristol tribunal on Thursday.







30 Comments
View all
by Bert, Bristol
Friday, November 28 2008, 2:17PM
“Let's hope none of the anti workers rights people on here don't have cause to regret their words by being crapped on from on high by their employers during these difficult economic times.”
by Gary, Cornwall
Friday, November 28 2008, 12:46PM
“Grahame thats a very good point. This person is allowed to damage her former employers without redress, what a confused world we live in.”
by Anon, Bristol
Thursday, November 27 2008, 10:00PM
“Oh and I have not replied sooner, because I have just sat down for my evening meal at approx 10pm at night. I was up at 6am, prepared my children, prepared myself, made lunches, tidied, started my day job, worked solidly through lunch, got home past 6pm and again made sure the kids were settled, fed, watered, had some cuddles and kisses. Then began the housework, spent some time studying for my college courses and finally have sat down.
I have a secret to tell you, I am actually not superwoman........................ I am a part time worker!”
by Anon, Bristol
Thursday, November 27 2008, 9:50PM
“Dear Lord Clifton, it is because I am aghast at the sheer narrow mindedness of some of the opinions expressed on here. Everyone has their own opinion on these matters, but most of the negative ones are severely misguided judgements. Based on no facts and inaccurate information.
There is the insinuation that we should all remain childless in order to be equal members of society. Or if not, then to stay at home and look after our children. If I did that, I would need benefits.
Which beggars belief considering so many of you complain about others scrounging off the state, I for one work my hardest to be a great mother and role model for my children, provide them with decent food, a decent roof over their head and work my absolute face off every day and night to do this. Parenting is a full time job regardless. Working part time is not actually working part time at all! There are jobs suited for part time working and many employers find that part time workers are actually an asset to their businesses. Let it be known that many 'part-time' workers end up working full time work loads during a shorter period of hours and therefore should be deemed not as 'incapable' as has been implied' but actually far more efficient than any full time working employee. Depends on the type of business and service being provided of course. But I for one guarantee that when I work my part-time job I work extremely hard to juggle both my personal and professional life and give my best to both. I think we part-timers deserve a little more respect than the degrading, spirit crushing comments that have been made.
Is this a fair enough point for you oh Lord Clifton...??????”
by Lord Clifton, Clifton
Thursday, November 27 2008, 9:12PM
“Mandy and Anon, I dare say you have some valid points to make. It's a shame you drastically reduce the likelihood of anybody taking you seriously when you have to resort to sexist language like "MCP" and "little boy" in order to make them. Kind of ironic too seeing as you frown upon the supposed sexist treatment of others when it suits you.”
by RD, Devon
Thursday, November 27 2008, 8:54PM
“GOOD LORD. So it's this womans own fault that she was treated badly for having children??! Are we back in victorian Britain? For pities sake - it is people with biggotted narrowminded views that are putting women who choose (or have no choice ) to juggle work with caring for children in exactly this position. A working mother has the legal right to request reasonable flexible working arrangements, it is the company's own responsibility to ensure they have sufficient cover for any shortfall in hours. In this day and age it is rare to find a family that can afford it's mortgage and all the costs of living on just one salary, lucky for those that can but the rest of us mothers have to work bloody hard to ensure we can provide for our children. If i gave up work i would have to claim benefits - then you'd moan that us mothers are scrounging etc. So which is best? Gary - please go read up on employment law, you clearly have no idea. Don't make ill informed judgemental comments unless you know what you are talking about!”
by Anna, Bristol
Thursday, November 27 2008, 4:49PM
“Unfortunately when you become a recruitment consultant you are told it would be very difficult to carry out your role part time. As a consultant this is quite obvious and if another consultant is not their this always impacts on the rest of the offices workload unfortunately - it seems in this case the company made alot of allowances for Emma and it really would appear that compensation culture is raising its ugly head yet again - most recruitment agencies are tough and you have to be pretty thick skinned to work in one... At least she only had to be there a few days a week!!! Part time for most of us would be about 4o hours - nature of the job!!!!!!”
by Ron, BRistol
Thursday, November 27 2008, 4:26PM
“Oh no yet another woe is me, the whole world is against me.
If this story is accurate then no wonder they got rid of her as she sounds a complete pain in the neck, in fact the company were better than they should have been. Obviously after a bit of compensation.
Hopefully this publicity will stop other companies employing her.”
by Grahame, Central Bristol
Thursday, November 27 2008, 4:12PM
“Apparently, the firm acceeded to her request to work part-time, and even then she was only there for 8 months in nearly two years. It's hardly surprising she felt excluded - I think I would too. But whether that's the fault of the business is debateable. After all, they kept her on and accomodated her by agreeing to her request re working part-time.
The thing that perplexes me is why she quit her job. Lots of bosses doubtless feel many of their staff are indeed pains in the neck and express the hope that they'll leave sooner rather than later. Some who overhear it may even think such remarks are 'horrible' if they're overly sensitive about such things. It just strikes me as an awfully thin reason for quitting a job they profess to love. Most folk, even sensitive types, would sit down and discuss why they were disappointing their boss and consider in an even-handed way whether the comments were justified - or conversely consider what they could do to improve any misperceptions.
I guess I'm just suspicious. In our compensation minded culture, compensation often seems to be sought on the slimmest of pretexts. That said, I don't know the lady or the company and for all I know, she could have been treated appallingly.
As a seperate issue, one thing that isn't fair is that firms have no redress if they're lumped with a vexacious claim. Small firms who lose in a tribunal can often lose everything. Other employees can end up losing their livelihoods as a result, whereas for the claimant there's no risk other than to their CV. Because full-time mums don't need CVs, some firms may quietly be shying away from investing in female employees who might start a family. If that's the case, our 'rights' culture may have gone too far and could be working against female equality in the workplace.”
by Equal rights for all!, Everywhere
Thursday, November 27 2008, 3:31PM
“Lord Clifton
I take it all your attitudes are throwbacks from the 50's. You can pretty much guarantee that if more men made the choice to stay home with the kids and work part-time that any arrangements would be okay by you. You really are showing yourself to be a narrowminded MCP. I really don't understand why other peoples working hours bother you so much, if you're that bored, get a book!”