Police officer uniform - women must wear women's trousers, mem must wear men's trousers..

[jonarna]

Hi,

I am a police officer and onviously have to wear a uniform.

It is a well known fact (when researched on net or to ask a police officer) that the women's trousers are extremely high waisted and atleast 2" above the waist (and were adapted from the men's trousers apparently, according to all sources i have read dating back to the olden days...)
The men's trousers sit a lot lower and a lot more comfortable.

I have just returned to work following one years absence after a car crash and damage to my back. I still have muscle loss in my back but have had medical treatment and have returned to full duties. I am therefore trying to do everything possible to prevent further injury and keep pressure off my back, so have been authorised by my inspector, a harness for my kit (so i do not require a kit belt around my waist/back area) and 'men's' trousers, which will not apply pressure to my back and sit on my low waist.

The department head of uniform has refused this request even though he is completely aware of all the issues described above and said that as a woman i am only allowed to wear women's trousers and as a man only men's trousers.
I called him to explain the reasons/back problems due to the car crash and he said it "did not matter"

I am now very desperate to find out if this such thing is allowed and if diversity and equality issues do not outweigh his reasoning.

Please help!

[cassa333]

I am unable to help with your actual question but have to ask,. If your back is such that even a pair of trousers let alone an essential utility belt could further injure you how can you be fit enough to return to normal duties? One good shove from a fleeing criminal could proove catastrophic!

Anywy the poa should be able to help you.

[kia cat]

Can't see why unfiorm head is refusing. Is he just "rules is rules" mentality?

Guessing WPC's trousers & mens trousers are identical fabric? So you wouldn't stand out in a group of other WPCs?
Put your Inspector, Federation Rep on his case. Get a letter from your GP/Consultant to back up your case. Good Luck

[paraffin]

This is a wind up.

[bednobs]

i just can't understand how trousers would make you so ill? as said before if your back is so bad, that wearing a pair of trousers would injure it or make it worse then you need to be on restricted duties. They require you to wear a uniform to do your job, and you can't wear the uniform. If you are disabled they have to make "reaonable provision" t enable you to do your job, but if you have recovered to the point where you are able to resume full duties, i can't see that the DDA applies to you

[jonarna]

It is not a wind up.

I have returned to full duties - what the Occ Health Advisor said is that i have muscle loss in my back - and to not intefere with it.
Therefore i am doing all i can to avoid that, thats all.

Yes the bloke is rules is rules but i have a GP letter, fed rep on case and higher authority
Plus the British women's association for policing whom are going mad and this will be solved because of the BWAP but i want to know if this man can do this - it is not fair and noone has come back with an actual answer yet.

[TCL-MUMPING]

6 Duty of employer to make adjustments

(1) Where�
(a) any arrangements made by or on behalf of an employer, or
(b) any physical feature of premises occupied by the employer,
place the disabled person concerned at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled, it is the duty of the employer to take such steps as it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to have to take in order to prevent the arrangements or feature having that effect.

3) The following are examples of steps which an employer may have to take in relation to a disabled person in order to comply with subsection (1)�
(a) making adjustments to premises;
(b) allocating some of the disabled person�s duties to another person;
(c) transferring him to fill an existing vacancy;
(d) altering his working hours;
(e) assigning him to a different place of work;
(f) allowing him to be absent during working hours for rehabilitation, assessment or treatment;
(g) giving him, or arranging for him to be given, training;
(h) acquiring or modifying equipment;
(etc)

(4) In determining whether it is reasonable for an employer to have to take a particular step in order to comply with subsection (1), regard shall be had, in particular, to�

(a) the extent to which taking the step would prevent the effect in question;
(b) the extent to which it is practicable for the employer to take the step;
(c) the financial and other costs which would be incurred by the employer in taking the step and the extent to which taking it would disrupt any of his activities;
(d) the extent of the employer�s financial and other resources;
(e) the availability to the employer of financial or other assistance with respect to taking the step.

[TCL-MUMPING]

Sorry. this was meant to be posted first

The following may be of help as an employer must make reasonable adjustments.

The 1995 Disability Discrimination Act states

Meaning of �disability� and �disabled person�
(1) Subject to the provisions of Schedule 1, a person has a disability for the purposes of this Act if he has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
(2) In this Act �disabled person� means a person who has a disability.

Schedule 1 states

The effect of an impairment is a long-term effect if�
(a) it has lasted at least 12 months;
(b) the period for which it lasts is likely to be at least 12 months; or
(c) it is likely to last for the rest of the life of the person affected.
(2) Where an impairment ceases to have a substantial adverse effect on a person�s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, it is to be treated as continuing to have that effect if that effect is likely to recur.
(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), the likelihood of an effect recurring shall be disregarded in prescribed circumstances.
(4) Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which, for the purposes of this Act�
(a) an effect which would not otherwise be a long-term effect is to be treated as such an effect; or
(b) an effect which would otherwise be a long-term effect is to be treated as not being such an effect.

[jonarna]

Thank you very much - that was the answer i was looking for all along!
So therefore if the employer does not fill these requirements, do you know the consequences?

Thank you so much TCL Mumping

[TCL-MUMPING]

This is the link to the Act and part 8 gives details of the remedies, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/ukpga_199 50050_en_2#pt2-pb2-l1g8

[bednobs]

obviously you know yourself better than any of us do, but does the DDA really apply to you? does muscle loss make you disabled? Now you have had treatment, recovered and gone back to work, would you class yourself as disabled?

[jonarna]

I had a car crash 3 1/2 years ago that has caused me to have a permanent disability - ALTHOUGH - it does not stop me being a police officer, running normal duties and general policing - so although i would not class myself as disabled, this is an ongoing issue that has caused me a permanent problem that will affect me in years to come - as opposed to an old lady, before retirement i will def need to retire/get a desk job.
As you say, i know myself better then anyone and i understand that you dont understand the full issues but i am willing to share my story if you are that interested (and think i may be taking the ****) but i will not do it on here, email address?

I'm 24 years old, i have been in the job 6 years and i have fought to not be medically retired. DDA is anything/problem that has lasted over 12 months or, permenant.. so it would/

Im not interested in suing the job and i certainly am not one to start making a big fuss over something so ridiculous, however, everyone in the nick is agreeing with me having the trousers (and if any of you work for the job you will know what im talking about) and this random one bloke jobs worth is just preventing it - so i concrete advise (as given by TCL thank you) to shove in his face and make him eat his words. (Besides he has been so bloody rude to me)

[jonarna]

The muscle loss/damage is not the permanent disability bedknobs, thats just an addition and i am only taking advise off the Occ Health adv to keep anything and everything away from that area to prevent the permenant disability (which i do not want to disclose on this but will do individual) from being aggrevated and causing probs.

[paraffin]

Seems as if you're far more concerned about "diversity and equality issues" than you arte about being a Police Officer.

"I certainly am not one to start making a big fuss over something so ridiculous." You could have fooled me.

"and this random one bloke jobs worth" I take it that you're referring to a senior Officer?

You say you're 24, have been in the job six years, you've been on the sick for at least one year of that, probably more I suspect, and you haven't said one positive thing about being in the Police, it's all negative because they allegedly won't let you wear a certain type of trousers?

Now, I know probably a lot better than most on here how Police Officers like a good whinge now and again, but I've never ever heard such a load of twaddle.

If you really are a genuine Police Officer, this matter would be firmly in the hands of the Federation and your own doctor, with certain input from a Police doctor as well.

You cannot be deemed to be fully fit for operational duties from what you've described, and I doubt very much if you've been wrestling with drunken yobs, for example, in the recent past? You need to be capable of at least coping with the physicalities of the job.

Plus, you rattle on about getting a desk job, with 6 years in the job? I don't think so, they'd find a way to get rid of you, believe me.

All over a pair of trousers! No wonder I thought this was a wind up! As a Police Officer, you either get on with it without the self pity, or you get out.

[jonarna]

I have read some of your other posts, as you appear to post on most, but i will leave it at that considering you have absolutely no right to judge me or be so rude. You should be ashamed of your self.
Do not dare try to be the font of all knowledge about knowing about the fed rep and my doctor and how they'd have found a way to kick me out. You are so so wrong.

Thanks to everyone else.

[cassa333]

I have to agree with paraffin on this one.

If you are fit enough to chase criminals, if you are fit enough to patrol the mean streets and if you are fit enough to be on full duties and you are winging about a pair of trousers I DON'T WANT YOU IN MY TOWN PATROLING MY STREET.

[paraffin]

So, you've gone to the trouble of finding my contributions to other posts? Why? Not that I mind one bit, but it's a bit odd to say the least. I could never have guessed I was that important. Perhaps I should be flattered?

Where did I try to say that your Fed Rep and doctor would find a way to get you out of the job? Simply incorrect.

When I said "they'd find a way to get rid of you", that wasn't a reference to the Fed or the doctor. No, "they'd" refers to the powers that be within your own Force.

And I see that you haven't even been able to address the points I made, i.e. 1. The "one bloke jobs worth"? 2. How long you've actually spent on the sick? 3. The reference to you being genuinely back on operational duties?

Don't forget, you're the one who posted this thread and all I've done is make valid observations from my personal knowledge of the Police Service of what information you've chosen to reveal. .

And if you classify that as me being "so rude", then God help you when and if you ever come up against an unruly mob of teenage yoblets in the street or a full blown punch up when the pubs and clubs kick out.

A Police Officer needs to have skin as thick as an elephant's to survive on the streets and to be able to bounce back. I should know, I've got the scars to prove it. And they didn't come from having to wear a different set of trousers to those I'd have preferred.

Anyway, you always have the choice of wearing a skirt instead. That'll solve it.

[stonekicker]

personally, i'd have got medical discharge and you would have avoided the whole trousers issue. simple...or apparently not x

[joko]

i would have thought that a high waisted pair would actually provide MORE support for your back and therefore be BETTER than the mens....

also just order a larger pair..these will be looser and sit lower on your waist... and just have them adjusted to fit...if they are simply made from an adjustment to the mens version then i doubt they will have altered hip and crotch length... easy