Key Point
- Men are more prepared to raise issues in the workplace about balancing work and non-work commitments.
There is an interesting development in the law. More so than ever before, men are making complaints about discriminatory treatment in the workplace arising from their obligations as caregivers to their children and other family members. The recent decision of Bishop v Gedge [2008] QADT 17 is an example.
Background
Mr Bishop was an employee of Carpet Call from November 2003 to July 2005. He initially started as a store person and progressed to timber warehouse supervisor. At the relevant time, Mr Bishop had five children aged from to two to 17, all of whom lived at home with him and his wife.
Mr Bishop alleged that he had been discriminated against on the basis of parental status and family responsibilities under the terms of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld).
Specifically, Mr Bishop claimed that he was discriminated against by:
- being denied further training for the position of installation manager, after he had taken on short notice a period of leave on account of family responsibilities;
- not being given a pay review after taking that leave;
- having annual leave deducted from his accrued leave entitlements because he had taken that leave when he was also required to make up the time he had off;
- being denied short carers' leave on 16 July 2005 when he asked to take his daughter to the hospital and then being given a choice between remaining or abandoning his post with the implication that if he chose the later he would not have a job to return to.
Decision
Member Forrest of the Tribunal found in favour of some aspects of Mr Bishop's claims.
In particular Member Forrest found Mr Bishop had been discriminated against on the basis of family responsibilities when he was denied short carers' leave and when given the choice that he reasonably understood would result in him losing his job if he chose to leave work to take care of his sick daughter.
Member Forrest also found in favour of Mr Bishop in respect of his claim concerning the provision of further training. He found that access to training that Mr Bishop had commenced in early 2005 had ceased as a result of the number of short-term absences Mr Bishop had taken in relation to family responsibilities concerning his wife and son. Member Forrest found that Mr Bishop's work performance was not affected by the leave and as a result his employer had denied him further training as a direct result of his family responsibilities.
Member Forrest dismissed the remainder of Mr Bishop's claims. He held that Mr Bishop was mistaken in his expectation of being promised an additional pay review and therefore no unfavourable treatment was found to have occurred. He found also that Mr Bishop did not have his annual leave unlawfully debited after he had worked extra hours to make up the time taken on short-term leave.
Member Forrest awarded Mr Bishop $17,500 as general damages for the depressive illness, hurt, humiliation and embarrassment suffered as result of the unlawful discrimination. Mr Bishop was also awarded $16,000 compensation for economic loss resulting from the termination of the employment.
Conclusion
The fact that working men have family responsibilities is hardly news. However, what this decision highlights is a growing preparedness of men to raise issues as the debate in the workplace about balancing work and non-work commitments broadens and extends beyond the experiences of women as primary carer-givers. Certainly, the decision in Bishop highlights the need for employers to be aware that a failure to consider the family responsibilities of all its employees can give rise to discrimination claims.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.