Need big help from you

[enay73]

Hi everyone,

I really really need your help. I am currently working for a company where unfortunately they don't allow me to wear glasses when I am working. My job is primarily working face to customare and this company doesn't want to allow me to wear them. I raised a grievance couple of months ago but unfortunately I cannot get back anything good. I used to do this job with other companies before and honestly I never had anything similar.
I am very stressed and I ve been off for sick quite a while and ufortunately I cannot keep continue as if I am off I don't get paid full salary as I am loosing few additional pay and the very basic pay it's not help me with the bills. It's very stressful for me. They allow me to wear contact lenses but I can't cope anymore and if I cannot wear it I am not fit to do my job. So I do have 2 choice here or wear it and keep working or resign. It's very complicate but I can't explain too much.
Any tips from you? Pls help me as I am very exausted.

Enay

[letshelp]

Hi Enay,

Just a couple of questions which will help me and others give you the advice you need.

How long have you worked for the company?
Did the company know you wore glasses when you were interviewed for the position?
Have you read completely your companies policies that strictly forbid the wearing of glasses in work?
Has anybody outside of your company actually complained agaisnt you for the said wearing of glasses?
Has the company started any disciplinary action against you for this 'crime'?
There could be a case against the DDA here, but wiser people on this forum will make that judgement.
Basically Enay try and relax, don't let them bully you and see what the excellent people on this site can come up with.

[enay73]

Hi Letshelp

I am in the company about 1 year and half now
When I had the interview they didn't say anything about the glasses. Before to start they said that they wouldn't accept the glasses but I could wear contact lenses.
To be honest this policy is quite strange as it's not very clear, but I can promise you it's a costant harrassment if you wear it. I raised a grievance and for the outcome nothing has changed.
They didn't give me any disciplinary action as I raised the grievance. They said that I shouldn't wear it but if I do give the a doctor certificate I am not fit to work anymore as I cannot wear contact lenses. So if I want to keep continue to work I have to go without any correction.
I called the DDA to ask if I am into this kind of DDA but unfortunately doesnt cover this matter and it's quite bizzarre. How can I suppose to work if I don't wear glasses?
Also some of the ppl can wear glasses even the policy said that we are not allow to. But unfortunately they can say whatever they want but basically to the ppl can wear glasses they wouldn't say anything to them as they do have a strong position than mine but I swear to God that it's true and I am sick all of it.

[letshelp]

OK,

WEll first things first, I believe exactly what you say, you don't have to make any declarations of truth.
As you have been with the company over 12 months you have a lot more protection within the Employment Act.
Sorry, but I need some more answers, is the glasses issue within your place of employment a Health and Safety matter?
What was the end result (if resolved) with your grievance?
Are you a member of a union?
I know it is easy for me to say, but please don't make yourself any more stressed over this matter, you have an awful lot of people on your side now on this forum, take strength from the fact no one here has any other wish than to help you through this.
Also ask any questions that you feel you need to know about, don't be shy, no-one here will laugh or complain.

[enay73]

Ok I didnt finish my grievance yet. I am appealing again for the last step.
Also ok I am a cabin crew. As you know almost company allow to wear it. I used to fly before so no problem at all. Apparently with this company for appereance doesn't allow to wear glasses. Look BA, Virgin and others. all of them allow you to wear them.
Here where I am it's not and they said that I have to respect their policy, thats it!
I do have union but I am feeling alone, they don't understand that if I am not flying I am not earning money.....so if they ground me because I cannot wear contact lenses anymore it's a very big problem for me. How can I pay bills?
Also trust me I do love my job and in this case I have to go to work without any correction and it makes me feel bad after a flight.

[letshelp]

Enay,
Have I got this right, it is their policy to ban spectacles on the grounds of 'looks alone' and that is in their employment contract?
I am seeing a union steward friend of mine tomorrow, I will bring this to his attention and seek his advice. I will post when I know some more in the next day or two.
It sounds like a complete nonsense to me, health and safety I would understand, but looks!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyone else feel free to jump in.
regards

[enay73]

Hi Letshelp
thank you very much for your help. I don't have anything written down on my contract. To be honest too many things are not quite clear. I arrived in a point that now I have to choose or to wear contact lenses or go to work without or resign. there are not other options with them.
I am with the union and I must admit that even I am paying for years most of this grievance I am doing on my own. I feel betrayed. I would like to get involved a solicitur and if I have to I have to pay with my own expenses. the union are too far for this case.
If I had a chance I would like to draw this attention to the media because it's against to human right. Tell me when you heard that for safety you need do not wear glasses on board. It doesn't make sense and when you ask why just an answer that it's nothing to do with the safety. But that's it I can't do anything different. I am off for stress and I have to go back to work soon and the only choice I do have and to go with any correction because I have to work, that's the problem even I do not agree their policy but there is not other choice. Even I go to work with glasses they will ask me to take them off with all the consequences. tell you if it's fair all this issue.
Thanks
Enay

[enay73]

If there is any solicitur who can really help me to sort out this matter I would really grateful. I have to mention also because I am not getting paid too much at the moment I cannot afford to spend huge bills.
Thanks

Enay

[dpr]

What a stupid rule, sounds absurd to me. It would be health and safety issue if you didn't wear them 'cause you wouldn't be able to see properly. I know a lot of people who can't wear contact lenses.
You could also ask at you local solicitors as mine does a free 1/2 hour consultation on one evening a week.
Good luck.

[enay73]

Think about me how I do feel. I don't know how can I stop this bullying. Unfortunately it's not a big help. I do believe that some journalist would love to write down all the story. It's disgraceful. we are on 2008 and this things still happen.
I hope one of you can give me help to sort out this matter before I get proper ill and without anymore money on my pocket.

Enay

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by enay73

If I had a chance I would like to draw this attention to the media because it's against to human right.

No it's not. It is a common misconception, but human rights legislation only deals with the relationship between the state and the individual. It does not apply to private employers.

Tell me when you heard that for safety you need do not wear glasses on board.

I can understand an airline requiring adequate vision without any correction for H&S reasons. In an emergency situation your glasses/lens may get lost or broken and you would need to be able to see adequately to ensure pax safety.

I would have thought that contact lens were the worst things that anyone could wear in dry, dirty cabin air.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Quote:
Originally Posted by enay73
If I had a chance I would like to draw this attention to the media because it's against to human right.

patdavies
No it's not. It is a common misconception, but human rights legislation only deals with the relationship between the state and the individual. It does not apply to private employers.


What nonsense!

For example, Article 11 includes the right to join a trade union. Article 14 prohibits discrimination.

And an ET1 will specifically ask if there are any Human Rights issues included in the claim.

[patdavies]

Oh dear, here we go again. "What nonsense" indeed.

Weird Al, I do so wish that you would check your facts before publishing your insults.

The relevant legislation is the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European Convention of Human Rights into UK law.

Section 6 of the Act is the one relevant to my assertion that this Act deals with the interaction of the state and the individual, in that the Act only applies to public authorities.

HRA 1998 s.6(1)

Acts of public authorities

(1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

s.6(3) defines a public authority

(3) In this section “public authority” includes—
(a) a court or tribunal, and
(b) any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature,
but does not include either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament.

The rights to which you refer are enshrined in other primary legislation were they exist in law at all.

Th reason that an employment tribunal asks about human rights is because the legislation applies to the tribunal S.6(3)(a) - not because it applies to a non-public employer. A few non-governmental employers are considered public authorities; other may elect by choice to follow the legislation.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Rights of Workers under the European Convention of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act

• Under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 public authorities are obliged to act compatibly with the rights in the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’). Your employer may be a ‘public authority’ for the purpose of the Human Rights Act. You may therefore bring a claim against them if you feel they have violated your rights under the Convention.
• The Convention is still relevant when the employer cannot be regarded as a public authority. All statutes must be read ‘so far as it is possible to do so’ in a way which is compatible with convention rights. The Employment Appeal Tribunal has recognised this obligation when considering the test of whether a dismissal is unfair under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
• Courts and tribunals are also ‘public authorities’ under section 6(3)(a) of the Human Rights Act and must therefore comply with the Convention. If the court or tribunal fails to provide a remedy for breach of a litigant’s Convention rights by a third party, the court or tribunal may itself act unlawfully by failing to protect the rights of the applicant under the Convention.
• Where claims are brought by workers, Article 6(1) of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) may be relevant. There is some scope in certain situations for extending this to internal disciplinary hearings. However, Article 6 will be relevant only where the result of the disciplinary hearing would affect the worker’s ability to carry out his or her profession elsewhere, for example, disciplinary hearings by the General Medical Council or Law Society.
• Article 8 of the Convention provides for the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. This is relevant where employers intrude into the privacy of workers by monitoring telephone conversations, email communications, reading correspondence, video surveillance, intimate searches, drug and alcohol testing as well as through means of detailed questionnaires when applying for positions and psychometric testing.

The Government has passed the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which makes it unlawful to listen to calls without authority. This also applies to the use of email at work as workers are entitled to have a reasonable expectation of privacy at work.

It is no longer sufficient merely to warn workers that their telephone conversations or emails at work may be recorded or monitored in order to remove their expectation of privacy, as it is unreasonable to assume that workers will never make or receive calls touching on personal or intimate matters.

The right to privacy does not mean that employers can no longer monitor what workers do at the workplace. If there is a justifiable and proportionate reason to suppress this right, it will not be seen as unreasonable by the courts.

See also THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY

Article 9 (Freedom of Thought, Conscience or Religion) provides an absolute right to hold beliefs, however, the right to manifest those beliefs may be subject to restrictions in the interests of matters such as safety and public morals and protection of the rights and freedoms of others. If you feel your employer has restricted your right to freely practice your religion, you may bring a claim under Article 9.

See also THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE EQUAL TREATMENT

Article 10 of the Convention guarantees freedom of expression. This right is severely limited because of the competing rights between a worker’s freedom of expression and the employer’s right to manage the workplace. It is also clear that under the Convention, your freedom of expression may be restricted by your contract of employment. To this extent, the rights to expression can be bargained away by the worker upon agreeing contractual terms.

The scope of the freedom of expression depends upon a number of factors, including the method and manner in which you express opinion or criticism, as well as the nature of the opinion. Courts are likely to consider whether the allegations are supported by evidence, and also whether the matters have been raised and addressed internally.

Article 11 gives everyone the right to freedom of assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions. The ECHR has held that the right to join a trade union includes the right not to be forced to join a trade union on the basis that the freedom to associate also includes the freedom not to associate. This right is subject to the usual restrictions. In particular, Article 11 permits the impositions of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

Trade unions may also bring actions on behalf of members who they can identify as being directly affected by the alleged human rights violation, provided that the union can demonstrate that it has authority to act on behalf of its members.


Oh dear patdavies, indeed!

As with any legislation it will continue to evolve as and when cases present themselves in circumstances that are/seem unique.

You seem to also ignore the fact this legislation can be used against a private business who provides services to a public body too.

What a card you are!

[enay73]

Hi everybody,

thanks a lot for all your responses. So from what you have brought to my attention and see the acts. What do you think that I should do?
Unfortunately let wear or not wear glasses it's not a DDA, but the fact that I am not allow to wear it and force me in a certain way to keep continue at work is only wearing contact lensens I have always believed it's against to human right,I think it's something that for them is just have that option and that's it, any more ideas?
Thanks in advance.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

A quick google search of cabin crew shows all the different carriers require cabin staff to wear contact lenses and not glasses for safety reasons.

You must have known about this?

I doubt you will have much success against a H&S reg.