Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MarkSMark
Hi,
This is a bit of a tricky one for me.
The company I work for employs two women in a research environment. One of them has become pregnant and there are some materials/ processes etc in the area that may be bad for her or the foetus. Does the DDA apply here? Or should it apply to most women who are capable of conceiving? We are thinking of moving the pregnant woman to another area.
The non pregnant woman- should we move her too in case she becomes impregnated?
As a company can we demand a woman informs us when she is attempting to conceive so that we may alter her work? Or would we need to demand women AND men inform us so that it is PC?
Thanks
Marky
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Neil Pearson
I suppose we'd better answer just on the off-chance that this isn't a joke...
Protect the pregnant woman from hazards to the pregnancy, by moving her if necessary. Ask all your employees to report a pregnancy, but you cannot demand this, only suggest it for their own good.
If there are hazards that might affect either sex while conceiving (e.g. glycol ethers can affect male reproiductive health), you're supposed to inform the people affected - that's in the Management Regs.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Leadbetter
...and pregnancy is not a disability.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By fats van den raad
Neal...surely you recognise this... you should have gone with your first instinct and ignore this post.
It's been a while, but looks like he's back!!!!
I'm surprised that the policy in Mark's place of work is not the compulsory sterilisation of all female staff to prevent any "accidents"
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rob T
Being a bit wary on this one and taking Fats' comments in hand - I would however point out that there has been precedent set in the past but I'm b***ered if I can remember the main case. It was to do with a woman of an age where conception was a possibility/likelihood who worked with carbon tetrachloride (a well known teratogen/mutagen). I do remember that she was refused permission to work with the substance (regardless of whether she was intending to get pregnant). Does someone out there remember this case (I learnt it when I was doing my diploma in 1994 so it was before then).
Oh and yes and since when has the DDA had anything to do with pregnancy!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Fats, if you are going down that road, then you had best offer free sterilisation for all regardless of sex, age, race, religion, physical abilities, nationality, height, IQ or waist measurement.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Anthony Cassidy
In the case of of Day v Pickles Farms Ltd (1999) it was confirmed that the duty to undertake a risk assessment in respect of new or expectant mothers was triggered once a woman of child bearing age is employed, regardless of whether she is pregnant or not.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart Nagle
Mark.
Have you ever considered re-training? from your postings it would seem apparent that perhaps you might consider a more challenging environment for your obvious skills, say for example IT - you seem to have a definite affinity with computer messenging...or perhaps... a complete change - shallow sea kelp farming, as I hear it is also in vogue and to be recommended, or perhaps you might consider air traffic control in a wetlands nature reserve....lots of ducks and geese causing all kind of problems...
In respect of your question on the subject of the safety of impregnated women, I think you are absoluteley correct...yet again, when you state your policy, in order to be PC, ought to cover male members - being one yourself. The men no doubt will very much appreciate your efforts and obviously hold you in very high esteem - you're a really 'stand out' kinda guy. I expect they are certainly left in awe and wonder at your abilities in the field of health and safety management, just like many of us here... Where did you get all that experience?
Knowing your extertise and wisdon in this field, particularly from your previous postings on this site, informing how you would manage relations with the HSE etc, I wonder at how you have not secured a post by now with higher level responsibility? Obviuously your company just don't know talent when they see it...
I for one certainly enjoy your most interesting postings which never fail to make me think.... usually about einstein and time travel... If only I could go back in time, knowing what I know now I'm sure I could make a few changes that would be appreciated.... by most of those regulars on this site for one... But then E equals MC squared, so I would need a lot of M + C to get the E to do it eh! well thats interdimesional wormhole travel for you...
Can't wait for your next [expletive deleted]i...sorry posting....
Stuart
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Sinclair
Paul,
Try telling that to a woman who is eight months pregnant.
Seriously though, you are quite correct, to fall within the DDA the disability must have lasted (or be expected to last) for at least 12 months.
Regards.
David
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Hilary Charlton
On a more serious note (although I did particularly enjoy Stuart's posting).
Mark, yes you must move the pregnant woman, you must also check your cumulative effects for the non-pregnant woman provided of course that she is of child bearing age (and who knows how long that lasts these days!). You should also check your products for items that may cause infertility in men or have cumulative build up leading to teratogenic or mutagenic effects. These products should not be used by men who may want to start a family.
You can discrimate against men getting pregnant because they physically cannot achieve this particular state. This is basic risk assessment and COSHH stuff - it is fundamental and I suggest you do some reading up on this which will give you more information. The HSE provide some great PDF files on line for risk assessments and COSHH and it is worth a little surfing to be sure in your own mind of the legal implications of the action you are proposing.
Hilary
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By fats van den raad
For "women of childbearing age" should we nowadays read "anywhere between 9 and 65"????(According to newspapers)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stephen J W Clegg.
Termed now as "Childbearing Capacity"... because of the recognised age range of women physically able to have babies!
Fascinating!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.