Mum defends firm in sex discrimination case
-
A partner in a Bristol recruitment firm which isaccused of sexual discrimination told an industrial tribunal she was allowed to work part-time after having children and was not penalised as a result.
Kirsten Bye returned to Clifton-based Cavendish Maine four days a week after having her first baby in 2005 and is currently on maternity leave after her second child.
Former consultant Emma Archer, who had two children in quick succession, has taken Cavendish Maine to a Bristol industrial tribunal claiming she was forced out of a job she loved after she asked to work part time.
Mrs Archer, a mother-of-three from Long Ashton, is claiming sex discrimination, unfair dismissal and discrimination for asserting maternity rights. She also claims that she was not given a contract and that Cavendish Maine was in breach of contract.
Mrs Bye, who lives in Bath, told the tribunal: "Cavendish Maine allowed me to work partly from home which made life easier. I came into the office once every two weeks.
"I've been with the business for nine years. It's a very good culture to work in."
Mrs Bye, a friend of senior partner Nick Hester, did not accept that the senior partners had been trying to get rid of Mrs Archer.
But email evidence emerged at the tribunal which showed that this was discussed.
An email from a staff member talked of the company taking a "belt and braces approach if the ultimate aim is to extract her (Mrs Archer) from the business".
Cross examining Mr Hester, Fiona Farquhar representing Mrs Archer, said: "It is quite clear to anyone reading that email that you were having discussions to extract my client from the business.
Mr Hester replied: "No, not at all."
He told the tribunal he had been looking forward to having Mrs Archer back and that he thought he had been very accommodating by allowing her to work three days a week.
An email between staff members talked of senior male partners being "not at all clued up" about maternity rights and one said: "this will cost us a fortune" while a third spoke of the company seeking legal advice in relation to Mrs Archer.
Mr Hester dismissed the emails as office gossip. Mrs Archer 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.
She claimed she was made to feel unwelcome and in December she was singled out for redundancy, a process which was suspended when she challenged it.
She claims the final straw came when she overheard Nick Hester talking about her on his mobile phone and describing her as "a pain in the neck".
Wayne Smith told the tribunal he had called Mr Hester at the time the call took place to talk about an ongoing deal.
Cavendish Maine denies that it discriminated against Mrs Archer.
The tribunal continues.
16 Comments
View all
by Ruby, West End
Saturday, November 29 2008, 5:45AM
“This story is about revenge and greed of one person. What started the revenge we will never know, I suspect like most mothers guilt at leaving children at home.”
by Jason, Wick
Friday, November 28 2008, 10:29PM
“Everyone seems to be getting the wrong end of the stick. The case is not about her employers allowing her to work part time on return from her maternity leave; Mrs Archer worked on a part time basis in between her second and third children, and after the birth of third child for several months. Nor is it about taking maternity leave, which Mrs Archer took on two occasions. Perhaps the truth will out when the court has made its decision.”
by margaret, bristol
Friday, November 28 2008, 5:16PM
“I dont know emma archer but i have worked for cavendish maine for 7 months and in that time i have found them to be very professional and approachable and have gone out of their way to help me not the picture emma archer describes1”
by Amanda, Bristol
Friday, November 28 2008, 5:02PM
“CT
You're not really on the same wave length are you? This is about whether this lady was made redundant because of her taking maternity leave, not some trivia about visiting mum and dad or your cat!
If there were provision within the law, and you were entitled to visit mum and dad or your cat, then you may have been made redundant because of it, then you may well have a case! Just because you think, or I certainly get the impression that you think, for some unknown reason, that maternity leave is wrong, doesn't change the fact that there is a chance Emma may have lost her job because of it, which, like it or not, is against the Law.”
by CT, BRIStol
Friday, November 28 2008, 4:17PM
“I think i'll ask my boss on monday if i can work when i like as i'd like to see more of my parents and spend more time with my cat. I think i know the reaction. Some people just take the michael.”
by Amanda, Bristol
Friday, November 28 2008, 3:10PM
“Whether you feel they are fair or otherwise, employment laws are in place to protect all workers. Without them many employers would completely walk over their employees. She did nothing wrong by taking maternity leave, millions do it. Also the Company must have agreed to her reduced hours. So far so good. What is in question is if she was selected for redundancy because of it, or if they thought it would cost them money. Unfortunately that's all part of being an employer. If Emma is proved right then shame on Cavendish Maine, I really hope this is not about money on her part, and more about principle!
Also Gary, just because you hear spiteful comments from your work mates every day doesn't make it right! - not all people can ignore it, and should not be expected to if they find it offensive! Nothing to do with 'rights' more like basic manners!”
by KB, Bristol, England
Friday, November 28 2008, 1:54PM
“Hmmm, So the company didn't cover her job while she was off? Sounds to me like it was a part of the business that wasn't turning over much profit so they couldn't afford to employ temporary cover and pay her as well. However, they kept it ticking over so they could discharge their obligations and offer her old job back. Also, if she was as good at her job as she claims, why aren't Cavendish Maine's competitors lining up to offer her employment?
Finally, presumably the family isn't short of a bob or two, so why isn't she using her talents by setting up her own company? Maybe it 's too much like hard work, and she'd have to employ women who may take her for a packet if they felt discriminated against?”
by Gary, Cornwall
Friday, November 28 2008, 12:13PM
“Not the best thing to have on your C.V
Disgraced and sued former employers
Perhaps she can claim she was on a very long holiday to explain the gap on the C.V. Either way, a more astute person would have walked away and gone on to better things. Do not be fooled by the sound of cash registers ringing”
by Jason, Wick
Friday, November 28 2008, 12:01PM
“Partner defends company...no miss-placed loyalty, she merely stated the facts as she perceived them to be, no sides taken. A stance that Mrs Archer would have done well to observe as opposed to sensationalising her statements in order to give substance to her claim. With regards to the previous article, show us the figures to substantiate her claim that she was a 'top sales person'.”
by Mary, bristol
Friday, November 28 2008, 11:25AM
“Good to here (LOL) I am not the only person to own some common sense, like most discrimination acts they are far to easy to abuse, normally one persons word against another can not be used as evidence or overhearing a private conversation. Here here to common sense.”