FOOTS CRAY: Pregnant worker forced out of job wins tribunal case (From News Shopper)
Get involved: Send pictures, video, news and views - text NEWS SHOPPER to 80360 or email us
FOOTS CRAY: Pregnant worker forced out of job wins tribunal case
8:30am Thursday 18th March 2010 in
AN ADMIN worker forced out of her job when she became pregnant, has won a five figure payout at a tribunal.
Vicky Butler, 25, of Wolvercote Road, Thamesmead, was working for Volks Apart, a car parts business in Cray Road, Foots Cray, when she became pregnant in 2009, an Ashford employment tribunal heard.
Ms Butler told the tribunal after April last year, when she told her bosses she was pregnant, she had been treated so unsympathetically by the company, she was forced to resign 11 weeks later.
When she was late to work because of morning sickness, her boss told her to to get up earlier.
When she had problems with fainting, doctor’s appointments and emergency hospital admissions, she was threatened with disciplinary action.
Ms Butler said she had provided the company with government guidelines on how it should treat pregnant employees, but it chose to ignore them.
Ms Butler was represented at the tribunal by the Cross Street Law Centre in Erith, which provides free legal help on employment, housing, benefits and discrimination matters.
Patrick McNamee from the centre insisted the two directors of the company Derek Dalby and his son Neville, be named in the complaint, after the company claimed it could be about to go out of business.
This meant if the company did go under, they would be liable to pay any award to Ms Butler.
The tribunal awarded Ms Butler £5,937 for loss of earnings and a further £10,000 for unlawful sexual discrimination and injury to feelings.
It said she was “treated less favourably because of pregnancy and she was “entitled to treated herself as dismissed”.
Mr McNamee said the company denied the allegations “to the bitter end”, complaining about her lateness and absences caused by her pregnancy.
He added: “She is a brave and plucky person standing up to two men with very forceful personalities.
“She did a lot of the claim herself and we cannot fault what she did.”
Afterwards Ms Butler said: “They had no excuse.
“I took them information from the direct.gov website telling them how they should do things, but they ignored it all.
“It was terrible and I had no option but to resign.
“The money will help me start again where I left off. I cannot thank the law centre enough.”
The company declined to comment.
Comments(46)
DrDBexley
says...
9:59am Thu 18 Mar 10
Citygirl83
says...
11:27am Thu 18 Mar 10
Locked and Loaded
says...
11:34am Thu 18 Mar 10
:)
puss in boots
says...
11:45am Thu 18 Mar 10
Locked and Loaded
says...
11:50am Thu 18 Mar 10
Citygirl83
says...
1:16pm Thu 18 Mar 10
Locked and Loaded wrote:Locked and Loaded, you make me blush but I can assure you a daily shower leaves me smelling nice and rosey!
Citygirl83 perhaps you should shower you know where more often. :)
PatMac
says...
1:17pm Thu 18 Mar 10
Erastus
says...
1:21pm Thu 18 Mar 10
KayKay555
says...
3:44pm Thu 18 Mar 10
Erastus wrote:I'm sorry but what a ridiculous comment. It does not state in the article how long she had been an employee for anyway, whose to say she hadn't been working there for a while? How can you say that women should give 5years notice...please?! Not everybody knows what their situation would be in 5 years time.
Employers should be allowed by law to ask potential female employees whether or not they intend to get 'up the duff' in the foreseeable future. Women, if you are thinking about having kids then put the career on hold and give someone else a chance to work. Women should give at least 5 years' notice to their employer if they intend to start a family or start looking for another gullible employer to take them on!
I love you train of thought though, what a great idea, if you want kids then you shouldn't go to work for 5 years beforehand......so that would majorly increase the amount of people claiming benefits wouldn't it!! Can you imagine if all mothers were umemployed....seriou
sly give me a break!!
Erastus
says...
4:45pm Thu 18 Mar 10
Women should plan well ahead when they start thinking about starting a family and take the needs of their employers and colleagues into full account. We've had enough of subsidising women who want the best of all worlds when it comes to knocking out kids and keeping down a job; a job that perhaps would be better taken by someone who is soley career minded and not bent on having every other year off to bring up yet another sprog.
PatMac
says...
4:48pm Thu 18 Mar 10
Working PARENTS have rights and if all women who worked gave up work because they had children or, heaven forbid, were compelled to, the NHS and many other large organisations like local councils would come to a crashing halt. Not to mention small business like shops and others.
Why do we blame a harassed mother for how she was treated rather than the employer for the harassment?
Oh its ok, we do, to the tune of 15 grand.
It will continue like that until employers wake up to the fact that it is unlawful to do what has been suggested here.
DrDBexley
says...
4:57pm Thu 18 Mar 10
I'm sure you'd be the first to moan too about the state of the nation's youth and "hoody culture" and that parents should take more responsibility? Then why not get them off to the best start and let mum take care of them for as long as possible!
DrDBexley
says...
5:01pm Thu 18 Mar 10
Is it any wonder that these miscreant yobs simply laugh when threatened by a phone call to the police?"
"miscreant yobs" yet you won't allow parental care without a "life plan" being given to an employer!!
You can't have it both ways Mr Erastus
Erastus
says...
5:38pm Thu 18 Mar 10
Thanks for your input, albeit it a somewhat pompous offering with no substantial basis and little point. Bearing in mind that you quoted a comment left by me on another thread, I fail to see how it appeared 'as if by magic'. You sound a little confused; perhaps you should prescribe yourself half an hour on the couch.
Still, it's nice to know I have a new fan/stalker, I suppose.
Erastus
says...
5:51pm Thu 18 Mar 10
It's Me again !
says...
10:18pm Thu 18 Mar 10
Erastus wrote:Ooo the man with many names is back!
Employers should be allowed by law to ask potential female employees whether or not they intend to get 'up the duff' in the foreseeable future. Women, if you are thinking about having kids then put the career on hold and give someone else a chance to work. Women should give at least 5 years' notice to their employer if they intend to start a family or start looking for another gullible employer to take them on!
iworkedthere
says...
2:25am Fri 19 Mar 10
proudmumof1
says...
10:04am Fri 19 Mar 10
sickofspongers
says...
11:54am Fri 19 Mar 10
It's Me again !
says...
1:55pm Fri 19 Mar 10
proudmumof1 wrote:Take no notice of Erastus. He is a troll that is used to generate more comments on a news story !
Thankyou for everyones kind word's of support. Erastus, it's obvious you haven't got any children and are most probobly single and don't plan to have any children in the foreseable future. Some people can't "plan" in advance when they are likely to have children and before you ask, yes my son was planned. There is no excuse for the way some companies treat pregnant women especialy when they take them information from the government webiste outling how they should be treated. Everyones entitled to their own opinion but lets keep it to the facts and be realistic shall we? In MY OPINION, from the above comment, it's clear the company knew that what they was doing was wrong as other staff there didn't know what was happening.
PatMac
says...
2:15pm Fri 19 Mar 10
MrsSmith
says...
12:24am Sat 20 Mar 10
sickofspongers wrote:You are an idiot. Firstly the article is about a women forced from her JOB by the disgraceful behaviour of two bully's. Don't know if you noticed the key word there and that was JOB that means that she was a hard working TAX PAYER you fool, so any benefits she did claim she would have every right to as she'd payed in to the pot.
Lazy, scheming, sick note, sponger! She saw an opportunity to screw yet more money out of hard working tax payers. Getting duffed on purpose so she could be tucked away in a council flat, sitting on her backside all day while we pay out for her and now another 15k on top! Cushty eh? We are all mugs and I hate the PC madness in this country that makes it easy for people like this to take advantage and bleed our resources dry.
Also the fact that she prepared a lot of the case herself suggests that she is a far more intelligent than you.
At what point in the above article does it say that
A: She lives in a council flat, (and if she does so what, a lot of people who have council homes do actually pay proper rent to live in them, not everyone gets them for free) ?
B: That the state supports her? Her partner may support her
C: and with a newborn baby she wouldn't have the time to sit on her backside all day.
Its not illegal to become pregnant, but it is illegal to treat your pregnant employee badly, thus why they had to pay her £15000.
You really sound like the big man supporting men bullying a pregnant women, it wouldn't be acceptable in the street so why should it be acceptable in the workplace?
When you are pregnant your body reacts in ways you are unable to control thus why its against the law to add any pregnancy related sick days onto your record. The stress they put this women through could have caused her to lose her unborn cherised child, I think £15000 is a small sum to pay and they should of had to cough up more.
Lets hope God blessed you with a low sperm count as the thought of a bitter twisted women hater like you spilling your bile into an innocent childs ears makes me feel sick.
Moi
says...
9:57am Mon 22 Mar 10
Erastus wrote:You do realise there are plans that from April 2011 for fathers to have the right to take up to three months' additional paid paternity leave during the second six months of a child's life, if the mother has returned to work. Therefore employers better ask the men they employ if they intend to fertilise the Mrs too. Men could become a risky prospect if you take Nanu Ram Jogi's example, who fathered his 21st child aged 90.
Employers should be allowed by law to ask potential female employees whether or not they intend to get 'up the duff' in the foreseeable future. Women, if you are thinking about having kids then put the career on hold and give someone else a chance to work. Women should give at least 5 years' notice to their employer if they intend to start a family or start looking for another gullible employer to take them on!
Chris harvel
says...
7:19pm Tue 23 Mar 10
Serves the company right.
Ignore Erastus, he just Trolls to get attention.
Erastus
says...
8:57am Wed 24 Mar 10
proudmumof1
says...
10:29am Wed 24 Mar 10
lookingforfun666
says...
11:09am Thu 25 Mar 10
lookingforfun666
says...
4:42pm Thu 25 Mar 10
Having dealt with Volks Apart on a reasonably regular basis over the years and as such having firsthand knowledge of the Dalby’s I decided to actually research the facts, speaking to several former Volks Apart employees. As far as I am able to ascertain the following details are factual and not speculation.
To the best of my knowledge Ms Butler was the worst kind of employee from day one. She was consistently late for work and taking sick days and I am referring to the period of time before she was pregnant. As a favour to Ms Butler her out her employer, Volks Apart agreed to assign sick days as holiday to enable her to remain fully paid and only once officially commented on her time keeping. As far as I am aware Ms Butler received a written warning at this time.
Ms Butler was only employed by the company for a few months before declaring that she was pregnant and she then began to milk the system for all it was worth, secure in the knowledge that there is very little that an employer can do to a pregnant employee, irrespective of their behavior prior to the pregnancy. As far as I can ascertain Ms Butler did indeed notify her employer as soon as she knew that she was pregnant but her prior behavior and subsequent abuse of the system would suggest that her notification was purely divisive.
The fact is the Volks Apart were a small firm doing the best that they could to support themselves and their employees. As if it wasn't bad enough that Ms Butler had an abhorrent attitude to work before her pregnancy her conduct after became intolerable.
I can hear the politically correct crowd screaming now but let us be clear on this. As an employer myself I am sympathetic to the physical and mental stresses that a woman goes through during pregnancy and I have made every conceivable allowance to help member of my own staff who are pregnant. Morning sickness is a fact of pregnancy and no employer would or should hold a pregnant member of staff accountable for something that is clearly out of their control.
However, my understanding is that Ms Butler made no secret of the fact that she would use the system to its utmost, claiming every incident of lateness as ‘morning sickness’ and every absence as unavoidable due to pregnancy. My research indicates that Ms Butler was a disruption within the office, using her pregnancy as a weapon against her employer and this, sadly, is where the system lets us as a whole and the Dalby’s specifically, down.
I in no way see Ms Butlers victory in court as a victory.
Ms Butlers abuse of a system that she understood better than her employers is a sad indictment on the society that we live in today. The system is in place to prevent unscrupulous employers from acting in a prejudicial way towards pregnant employees. In these cases the law should be firmly enforced with the employer being bought to task and the victim protected.
However in the Volks Apart case Ms Butler abused the system in the worst possible way. In my perception the Dalby’s were guilty of only two things, negligence and naivety. They were negligent as they had neglected to learn the rules of the game that Ms Butler was dragging them into and they were naive as they naively believed to the very end that the legal system that they believed in and adhered to would protect them as they had done nothing wrong. They were wrong on both counts.
If the Dalby’s were the ‘forceful aggressive’ personalities that Ms Butler had intimated then they would surely have mounted a forceful and aggressive defence against Ms Butler? If they had wanted to show her up for the person that she truly is then they would have mounted a legal challenge to her spurious claims, interviewing every previous employee and member of staff and gaining character witnesses and statements. The Dalby’s didn’t do any of this, believing that they didn’t have a case to answer as they had never acted in a way that was anything less than considerate and understanding towards Ms Butler.
I have known all of the Dalby’s and Volks Apart for well over a decade and I have never found them to be anything less than charming, helpful and honest. Decent people are hard to come by and it’s miscarriages of justice such as these that are gradually taking honest, decent people and turning them into cynics. The Dalby’s have learnt a valuable if somewhat bitter lesson at the hands of Ms Butler, unfortunately it’s a lesson that they didn’t need to learn.
So whilst Ms Butler can sit back, proudly crowing to the world about her ‘victory over her oppressors’ I will sit and wonder why the journalists who so eagerly reported on this case didn’t dig a little deeper into the background as they would have found a much better story to cover. It only took me a couple of days to find out the truth……….
PatMac
says...
1:48am Fri 26 Mar 10
The tribunal was three independant people, one of whom was legally qualified. They didn't need two days. they started at 10am and finished more or less on the dot of 5pm and thatw as with about three hours of breaks in total. How come it took you so long? Did you speak to her rep? No. Did you ask for a transcript of the tribunal? No. So where did all your investigative skills get used up FOR TWO DAYS? Talking to the people who lost. Wow. you're good. Here's another suggestion. Rather than these people hide behind you, why have they told EVERY paper (Daily Mirros, Daily Telegraph and this paper) that they were unavailable to comment?
Get over it Volks Apart and the Dalby's. You lost because you were wrong. The Law said so. The Emnployment Rights Act, Sex Discrimination Act and others. . No one picked on you. You broke the law or are you and your 'friend' here saying the law doesn't apply to you. Tell us something else. Your solicitor claimed the company was going out of business. That was given in evidence too. What happened with that? Its against the law to lie to a tribunal. if you think the wrong decision was made because you were treated so unfairly then have the courage to appeal or the good sense to shut up. By the way, the posting above is going to be used to make another complaint to the tribunal and the posters detaiils will be sought. Any link to the people who lost will make a seperate case for contempt of the proceedings, there is a law against that too.
PatMac
says...
2:18am Fri 26 Mar 10
It was. If the disagree then they should have the **** to appeal and not hide behind you. By the way, an appeal can increase the award.
Like I said, appeal or shut up. Its that simple.
bsc
says...
1:16pm Tue 30 Mar 10
My question is if ms Butler planned the baby she has and loves it as any normal mother would, why would she drive to work whilst suffering fainting spells?
As well as putting herself and that baby at risk she also put others at risk too. If she had fainted at the wheel she could have caused a major accident, especailly considering the roads she would need to travel on are major roads!!! Unless of course the "fainting" was deliberate and with in her control. I hope Volks apart appeal as Ms Butler doesnt deserve any pity taking from innocent families in order to sit at home all day.
proudmumof1
says...
1:53pm Tue 30 Mar 10
bsc
says...
2:05pm Tue 30 Mar 10
honestycounts
says...
9:10pm Tue 30 Mar 10
Erastus: although there is no need for some of the comments I do agree that if Mrs Butler was planning a baby she certainly should have informed her employer (maybe not 5 years in advance) but definately once she knew she was trying.
Its easy to say that because a tribunal found the company guilty that they are but there are many miscarrages of justice in this world, however I would say what is fact is that Mrs Butler clearly has no thoughts for the safety of herself nor that of the poor child she has dragged in to the tribunal and papers for financial gain. Instead of looking up direct.gov Maybe it would be of more beneficial for Mrs Butler to research "confidentiality" or "privacy" in order to protect what she now has.
PatMac
says...
12:08am Wed 31 Mar 10
The thing is. I was there, in the hearing. Not 'lookingforfun' who likes to say 'to the best of my knowledge' a lot/ when printing an untruth (nice try but its no defence to printing untruths) wasn't in the hearing. He spent two days speaking to god knows who and found 'the truth' (to the best of his knowledge). I don't think your knowledge is that credible.
Lets see what we have here. A review if you like. There is law in this country. People abide by the law or they don't. The law says 'its no excuse to say 'I didn't know that was the law'. fairly sensible really. An independent tribunal heard about 4 hours of evidence. From Ms. Butler and the Dalby's, they were not on their own, they were represented too.
This is what happened. Evidence was given and they were not believed. This is how the law works. Tribunals are 'tribunals of fact'. One judge plus two others, two ordinary people trained in employment law. These tribunals don't sympathise with anyone. They listen and decide what they believe. The tribunal ruled, not Ms. Butler decided, unanimously, that they broke the law. The tribunal found that she was FORCED out. She collapsed one day and was taken by ambulance to hospital. The Dalby's said that in their evidence.
I see a lot of the attitudes here as no different to say 'so what if he stole, or so what if he drove drunk'. You can't pick and choose what laws you will follow and which ones you wont.
I bet all the men here would be beating the solicitors door down if their wife/sister/mother was harassed at work.
As for sayin that she wasn't innocent, she wasnt on trial AND if you believe what the Dalby supporters say here is what they say. It isn't everything that was heard. I think I'll publish it. Plus the judgement.
So now she should have driven to work if she was ill? Make up your mind (please 'the poor child? She was 4 months pregnant). She can't win here. The reason she struggled in was because they were threatening her with discipline because she was late BECAUSE SHE HAD MORNING SICKNESS. Which is why she resigned.
This was admitted by BOTH men in the hearing both verbally and in statements. Winston Churchill once said "I do not resent criticism even when, for the sake of emphasise, it parts for a time with reality" Very apt for here it seems.
bsc
says...
9:27am Wed 31 Mar 10
You quote that people would react differently if it was their mother/sister that was being "harrassed" but would you be so one sided towards Ms Butler had she fainted at the wheel and hurled into your child/sister/mother? I really believe NOT. You quoted Winston Churchill but I think in Ms Butlers case this one is more apt "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." In other words yes the tribunal went in her favour but the fact "appeals" exist, whether people opt for them or not, clearly indicates that sometimes the judges, no matter what laws they are trained in, can get it wrong!
Whether they did or didnt Ms Butler should still never have driven her car like that and I will definately be making a call to question why she was allowed to be on the road. I couldnt care less what tribunal you won Ms Butler You are an idiot to put innocent lives at risk!! People like you should have their licence revoked!!!
honestycounts
says...
10:42am Wed 31 Mar 10
Many people suffer morning sickness, they dont all resign.
As for me using the phrase "poor baby" then you condeming me for using this expression but say yourself that she was "only" 4 months pregnant (like the baby is nothing) just proves yet again that there is not much compassion from Mrs Butler or her allies for the child.
Your defence towards Mrs Butler makes no sense? If she was harrassed then I understand you defending her but she has clearly put that baby in danger as well as others like BSC says and there is NO defence for that!
PatMac
says...
10:00am Thu 1 Apr 10
Again you assume the judges got it wrong but like so many here, you were not there. How is it that readers of an article and comments know more than experienced tribunal judges. One of the panel members had over 17 years experience in employment law but the contributors sharing your view know best? Simply this, get real.
PatMac
says...
10:04am Thu 1 Apr 10
gooner10
says...
6:53pm Thu 1 Apr 10
honestycounts
says...
9:03pm Sat 3 Apr 10
Putting that baby at risk just for abit of publicity, whether she was harrassed or not is selfishly ridiculous by anyones standards, except yours of course, but then judging by your abnormal, weird and pointless views your not right in the head anyway. You followers of Mrs Butler throw accusations left, right and centre. Example being: the fire being suspicious? Yes I agree it is supicious! How does one know that Mrs Butler did not put someone up to do this as a "revenge attack"? You all deal the accusations out, yet refuse to accept ones staring us "normal" people in the face.
Defend Mrs Butler all you like , but at least defend the baby too! Do me a favour sweetheart go to a dr and ask, without reading him off aload of your usual babble, to up your dose of medication.
These comments are a waste of my time and I refuse to continue to entertain mindless, eccentric creatures like you, that care more about some dumb witts money or status then you do her innocent childs safety.
SosaysI
says...
5:42pm Sun 4 Apr 10
The baby was not harmed otherwise we would have learned she lost it.
Now as I read on you are inventing even more. Why would someone put someone up to start a fire and put the people who owe them out of business? I heard that it was an accident caused by a van in the workshop catching fire. Did she drive it in?
The more I read here the more it feels the facts have been ingored in place of imagination, supposition and rumour.
There was no 'innocent child's safety' jeapodised. You seem to be saying she was risking faints, she knew it but carried on going to work to get money. From what the two sides have said, no one has said this happened but you. Yous eem fixated that something that was never a factor now is!
Its a shame this thread has been hyjacked by someone hellbent on introducing, well, nonsense really. No other word for it. Its actually quite laughable. it reminds me of the Harry Enfield 'self righteous brothers' who wound themselves up over things that hadn't happened and were not likely to happen.
honestycounts
says...
6:15pm Sun 4 Apr 10
Good day to you all. I've nothing further to say as you clearly have nothing worth replying to. I shall leave on the note that Mrs Butler you must know you have failed and that if you wish to put that right stop listening to your so called followers and start protecting that baby. To fail a child this early on in its life is appalling, I hope you take this and learn from it because if you stay in denial like most of the nothings on here your child and any other children you may have are doomed for a terrible upbringing.
SosaysI
says...
7:46pm Sun 4 Apr 10
ripnetuk
says...
10:17am Fri 9 Apr 10
More News stories
- Hundreds caught watching TV without licence in Dartford and Gravesend
- Council shelves yellow paving slab scheme for Bromley North development
- Ladywell gypsy and traveller site rejected by mayor
- Futuristic adventure for girls in We Will Rock You musical performance
- Families 'on the brink of poverty', survey says
- Pensioner bludgeoned to death with hammer and glass jug, court told
- Two women arrested after man dies in Lewisham 'brothel'
- Perverted bus driver jailed for underage sex in his double-decker
- Fire authority confirm Horton Kirby fire station closure
- Police seek wooly hat man after bank thief snatches £10,000 in cash
Most popular
When news happens – email newsdesk, call 01689 885703 or text keyword NEWS SHOPPER along with your news, pictures and videos to 80360.
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
LNN says...
9:45am Thu 18 Mar 10