Our company would like to thank you both for providing us with an amazing service. Nothing is never too much trouble, someone is always to hand providing us with updated professional advice / information.E. Dunstan - Proline Groundworks<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" class="link" href="https://www.ssg.co.uk/advisor">ADVISOR Membership</a>

An amazing service!

<h1 id="f5cfd0af-ab94-4984-9e9e-80a09695f990" data-toc-id="f5cfd0af-ab94-4984-9e9e-80a09695f990">New ruling regarding transgender rights</h1>In the case of For Women Scotland vs The Scottish Ministers, the unanimous ruling was returned: the definition of women under the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex.Full details here: <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" class="link" href="https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042">For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent) - UK Supreme Court</a>The appeal was raised following the interpretation of the Scottish Gender Representation on Public Boards Act (2018), that transgender women shall be regarded as women in the context of the legislation (the Act advises on the inclusion of women in leading roles and on public boards, recommending a 50% representation rate).But the ruling may be more far-reaching than this Scottish law.Gender critical groups have for some time now voiced concern as to the rules applying to women, men and persons undergoing gender reassignment, particularly when it comes to inclusion and discrimination issues.As this appeal decision was made by the Supreme Court, the view of the law is now clear: women are only classed as women if they are so by sex, and biologically.Trans rights groups have voiced their concerns, but in order to address these, the UK Government would have to initiate a review of the Equality Act 2010.<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" class="link" href="https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/opposition-supreme-court-ruling-ehrc-akua-reindorf/">Opposition to Supreme Court sex ruling is ‘wishful thinking’</a><h3 id="01fceb3a-b29a-42bd-a2b3-c97ef46e028f" data-toc-id="01fceb3a-b29a-42bd-a2b3-c97ef46e028f">What does this mean for employers?</h3>Ultimately, discrimination, exclusion and harassment is unacceptable for any reason. So, employers should continue to enforce their rules and educate team members on issues of trans- and homophobia, as well as sexism etc.We envisage that pronoun use may once again come under fire following these latest announcements. However, employers are advised that protection under gender re-assignment still remains under the Act and that an individual’s gender choice is still a legal right.If you record data such as gender pay gap reports, any individuals currently transitioning should be included with the representation group of their biological sex.Employers may also wish to review their policies to ensure that the correct wording is being used, reflecting this clarification.

In the case of For Women Scotland vs The Scottish Ministers, the unanimous ruling was returned: the definition of women under the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex. But how might this ruling be more far-reaching than this Scottish law?

New ruling regarding transgender rights - what does this mean for employers?

SSG returned to the H&amp;S event in Birmingham for the second consecutive year, with a larger stand and exciting new displays. Held from 08 – 10 April, the event remains one of the UK’s largest and most important for professionals working to create secure and productive workplace environments.The event featured a range of seminars, workshops, and exhibitors from across the health and safety sector, providing valuable opportunities for learning and networking. Throughout the event, the team had the chance to connect with key industry leaders and professionals from across the UK, discussing our training, membership, and consultancy services.Our stand saw a lot of foot traffic throughout the three days, with visitors engaging with our popular spinning prize wheel and taking part in the health and safety quiz, both of which were a hit. We were also pleased to be visited by IOSH and UKATA, with whom we are able to have some valuable conversations and capture some great photos for social media, helping to further raise our profile at the event.“We were delighted to be back at this year’s H&amp;S Event,” said Adam, Head of Learning at SSG. “It’s been a great opportunity to connect with customers and peers, showcase our latest offerings, and continue fostering valuable industry relationships.”For more information on our services or to speak to our team about how we can help you, please visit <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" class="link" href="http://www.ssg.co.uk">www.ssg.co.uk</a> or contact 01752 201616.

SSG returned to the H&S event in Birmingham for the second consecutive year, with a larger stand and exciting new displays.

A thriving presence: SSG at the 2025 H&S Event in Birmingham

<h1 id="830f3cfd-3195-4394-a278-1058aef8266e" data-toc-id="830f3cfd-3195-4394-a278-1058aef8266e">Dismissed because pregnant</h1>An employment tribunal has concluded that a woman was unfairly dismissed from her role at a Marks and Spencer bakery due to her pregnancy.Nilgun Kayahan Kolan was employed for a short time at the Watford branch in October 2023. Initially, she had been assured by the company that she wouldn't need to lift anything over 5kg due to a back issue.However, after being transferred to the Watford location following her induction, she was asked to lift heavy boxes, according to evidence presented to the tribunal.During a conversation about her role, a manager reportedly told her, "I can’t move you anywhere else because your English isn’t good enough."Ms. Kayahan Kolan described breaking down in tears, with the manager, Caroline Bowie, briefly patting her on the shoulder before making it clear that she was expected to leave. She stated that Caroline didn’t ask any questions about her pregnancy or health, nor did she explore alternative roles or reasonable accommodations.She expressed her concern that her dismissal came directly after revealing her pregnancy, reinforcing her fear that disclosing it would cost her the job.Following the meeting, she waited for about 30 minutes, expecting someone to address the situation. When no one did, she knocked on Ms. Bowie's office door to seek answers. In her statement, she recalled asking, “What can I do?” and requesting documentation related to her dismissal.Reportedly, Ms Kolan was then told to leave her swipe card on the way out, which made her believe that she had been dismissed, albeit without process or documentation.Ms Bowie told the tribunal that she had asked Ms Kolan to go home and consider her options, referring to potential other vacancies in the organisation. However, she also confirmed that she did not believe any other roles were suitable, due to Ms Kolan’s poor command of English, but that she would have been quite happy to continue employing her in the bakery.The tribunal unanimously accepted the claimant’s case that the status of her employment was not sufficiently explained to her and that the language used clearly indicated dismissal.<h2 id="4846a634-919c-483c-bd22-ae43bce95945" data-toc-id="4846a634-919c-483c-bd22-ae43bce95945">Learnings</h2>As always, your processes ensure compliance!When an employee discloses pregnancy, employers should undertake a pregnancy / maternity risk assessment, which also includes questions regarding the capability of the individual and specified risks of the work activity.Following this, both parties should have a documented conversation to discuss the way forward. If the employee is unable to perform their usual duties, employers can re-assign them temporarily or place them on paid leave until maternity leave can commence.Before this is enforced, we would recommend an occupational health review or the request of a doctor’s report.In any case, it is vitally important to communicate clearly and openly and, as always, back up your conversations with a letter, email or file note.

An employment tribunal has concluded that a woman was unfairly dismissed from her role at a Marks and Spencer bakery due to her pregnancy.