Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

Williams v Ministry of Defence
Employment Appeal Tribunal - (8 October 2003)

Issues

(1) Sex discrimination
(2) Pregnancy
(3) Training

Facts

Ms Williams was an Engineering Officer in the Royal Air Force who held the rank of Flight Lieutenant.

In 1999 she indicated that she would like to undertake an advanced pre-employment training (APET) course. The course would lead to the substantive rank of Squadron Leader. She attended an APET board and achieved joint top score. She was then informed that she was eligible to attend the APET course in September 2000.

In January 2000 Ms Williams found that she was pregnant and would be due to go on maternity leave in September 2000. As a result Ms Williams and her Line Manager were of the belief that Ms Williams would be pre-selected for the APET course the following year. However, Ms Williams was not selected. Then in March 2000 a defence council instruction was received by her employer which stated that service women who wanted to breastfeed their children should bear in mind that they were liable to undertake their full range of duties.

As a consequence Ms Williams raised grievances regarding her non-selection for the APET course and in respect of the breastfeeding policy. She subsequently accepted a discharge from the RAF on grounds of pregnancy.

Ms Williams then commenced proceedings in the Employment Tribunal based on sex discrimination.

At first instance the Tribunal upheld her complaint. The panel made a finding that she had been subjected to a direct sex discrimination by the Ministry of Defence as she had not been pre-selected for the following year’s course.

In addition the Tribunal made a further finding of direct or alternatively indirect sex discrimination as the Ministry of Defence had required Ms Williams to attend full time duties despite the fact that she was breastfeeding after her ordinary maternity leave had expired.

The Ministry of Defence appealed both decisions.

Decision

The appeal was allowed in part.

The Appeal Tribunal confirmed that the original Tribunal’s finding that there would have been no practical problems for the employer in placing Ms Williams on the course the following year was correct. Accordingly it was entitled to find that her pregnancy had deprived her of the benefit of the course and therefore she had suffered sex discrimination in not being selected for the following year. This part of the appeal was dismissed.

With regard to the decision on breastfeeding, the Appeal Tribunal found that the previous Tribunal’s decision had been correct. The protection awarded to a breastfeeding mother was limited to the maternity leave period or to circumstances where health and safety issues arose. There was no free standing protection beyond that given by ordinary maternity leave. In this case the ordinary maternity leave had ended and the matter of health and safety was not considered. This part of the appeal was allowed and the previous decision was set aside.

Comments

This case found that when Ms Williams had been accepted on a training course but could not attend due to pregnancy she had been subjected to unlawful sex discrimination from her employer by not pre-selecting her for the course the following year. However the case confirmed that there was no free standing right to breastfeed after expiry of the ordinary maternity leave period.