Chief Constable of the Bedfordshire Constabulary v Graham [2002] IRLR 239
It is a commonly repeated statistic that many people these days meet their partners/spouses at work. However few expect their career to be affected or damaged by this.
The recent Employment Appeal Tribunal decision - Chief Constable of the Bedfordshire Constabulary v Graham - is a welcome one. It means it will be difficult for employers to argue that spouses/partners cannot work together.
Ms. Graham was an inspector with the Bedfordshire Police Force. In April 1998 she married a Chief Superintendent, Mr. Minihane. The following year Ms. Graham successfully applied for a promotion to the division where her husband was chief superintendent.
The Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police Force rescinded her appointment. He said it was inappropriate because her husband was the divisional commander and therefore her superior officer. He also said it would be difficult for officers under her supervision to make a complaint or lodge a grievance knowing of her relationship with the Divisional Commander.
Ms. Graham was later promoted into a different division so she did not lose pay or status.
However she brought a claim for direct and indirect sex discrimination, and for direct and indirect marital discrimination.
The claim for sex discrimination failed as it was held that a man would have been treated in exactly the same way as Ms. Graham would have been.
However the claims for indirect sex discrimination and direct and indirect marital discrimination succeeded.
The policy of Bedfordshire Police Force was that officers could not work with another officer to whom they were married or in a partnership relationship if one of the individuals was of a higher rank and in a supervisory role to the other. Statistics showed as there were more women in relationships with other officers, a higher proportion of women were affected by this policy. The policy directly discriminated against married officers compared to single officers and it discriminated indirectly against married officers in the same way as it indirectly discriminated against women.
Equally of course a defence of justification can be raised by an employer in any indirect discrimination claim. The employer in this case said its policy was justified because of the problems of conflict which could arise, particularly when dealing with disciplinary matters or grievances of other officers.
The Tribunal was not satisfied with these arguments. In particular they felt that the issue of conflict could be readily dealt with by ensuring that a different officer, other than the spouse of the officer concerned, could deal with such cases. They also noted that a survey of other police forces found that many forces had married officers and couples working together at all ranks and some forces encouraged couples to work together.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal backed the decision of the original Tribunal at every point. This is a practical and common sense decision which means employers would have to have compelling reasons to argue that spouses/partners cannot work together.
It is also a decision which reflects the reality of the modern workplace.