Employers continue discrimination against women— commission

Press, 23 August 1984, Page 17

Employers continue discrimination against women— commission

A woman who had worked as a relieving departmental manager complained to the Human Rights Commission that she had been passed over for the permanent position to which a man, who had initially been employed as a labourer, was appointed. She contended she was not promoted because of her sex. OLIVER RIDDELL reports on a “classic example of discrimination in employment.”

Elimination of discrimination against women is of critical importance for the Human Rights Commission, according to its annual report to Parliament. The Commission received its biggest number of complaints about employment and employment advertising. Employers maintained stereotypes of job applicants on the basis of their sex, marital status, religious or ethnical beliefs. The Commission cites a classic example of the forms discrimination in employment takes:A woman complained to the Commission that she had been rejected for promotion to a managerial position on the basis of her sex.

She had started work with the firm (a branch of a nationwide company) as a clerk in the specific department of a general store. During the next 18 months the firm had three departmental managers either resign or be dismissed.

Each time there was a vacancy, the branch manager asked the woman—an

office worker within the department—if she would act as relieving departmental manager until a new one had been appointed.

The third time that she was asked, and by then with several months of experience behind her, she decided that she should apply for the position herself. She approached the branch manager. He told her that she was a very good worker and he had no complaints about her work performance, but he would have to "think about it” as she was a woman. After several weeks of indecision he appointed a male who, although having a clerical background, had been with 'the firm for only three months and was employed initially as a

labourer. The woman felt insulted and humiliated by the appointment of the newer and less experienced man. She left the job and complained to the Commission, saying that she was sure that “had I been wearing trousers the job would have been mine.”

After investigation, the Commission concluded that she had been denied the position because of her sex. Evidence showed that the manager had referred on various occasions to his doubts about having a female deparatmental manager.

In spite of her satisfactory work record, he had raised issues such as that she would not be able to control male staff under

her, that a woman would not be able to get the customer’s confidence; that she would have divided loyalties between her family and her work; and that a woman would not have the proper public relations image. Yet none of these things had seriously presented themselves as problems while she was relieving manager. The Commission called a meeting of both parties to discuss a settlement to the complaint. It was agreed that the company would compensate her financially, and would also provide her with an accurate reference to the effect that she had been a. capable and honest worker. The company also gave a

written assurance that it would not discriminate on the basis of sex again. Many of the complaints to the Commission were from people who, after an interview or reading a job advertisement, believed that they were able to do the job, but had not been given a fair chance, or consideration.

It says many of these complaints could have been avoided had the employers given some thought to equal opportunity requirements of the Human Rights legislation.

Employers are, generally becoming increasingly aware of their obligations under the law.

A common response from employers to complaints was: “I’d employ her if I

could get other women and then I’d work them in an all female gang, but I’m not having her on her own with the men.”

It is an employer’s prerogative to arrange the work environment in a way which it feels is most suitable for output and efficiency. When the result of that arrangement will be that someone is denied a job merely because of their sex, then the employer is acting unlawfuly.

It is not lawful for an employer to say to a female: “I will not employ you because there is not another female applicant.” This usually happens when the job the woman has applied for is one where few, if any, women have usually worked in the past. During the year, the Commission says, three programmes have been organised by the Department of Labour to help young women broaden their horizons in seeking work. Two required permission from the Commission because they discriminated in favour of women.