Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise

Constructive dismissalLocal authoritiesEmployment lawEquality, diversity and inclusionSex discrimination

Case of the week: O’Neill v Buckinghamshire County Council

by Personnel Today 3 Feb 2010
by Personnel Today 3 Feb 2010

O’Neill v Buckinghamshire County Council


Facts


Ms O’Neill was a primary school teacher. The facts are convoluted, but following various issues at the school, she was subject to disciplinary proceedings, during which she notified the school that she was pregnant. The disciplinary process was delayed as a result of both illness and then maternity leave.


O’Neill eventually resigned and claimed constructive dismissal and pregnancy-related sex discrimination. The sex discrimination complaint related, in particular, to a failure to carry out a risk assessment following her informing her employer that she was pregnant.


Decision


Under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, employers are under a duty to conduct a “general” risk assessment of risks to employees from the work they do. In addition, Regulation 16 requires that, if employers employ women of child-bearing age, and the work could involve risk to the health and safety of a new or expectant mother or her baby from any “processes, working conditions or physical, chemical or biological agents”, then there is an obligation to conduct an assessment of the risks to pregnant staff.


O’Neill argued that there was a general obligation to carry out a risk assessment for pregnant workers. However, the employment appeal tribunal (EAT) rejected this approach, and found that the duty to carry out a risk assessment is only triggered where the following pre-conditions are met:




  • The employee has notified the employer in writing that she is pregnant


  • The work must be of a kind that could involve a risk of harm or danger to the health and safety of the expectant mother or her baby


  • The risk must arise from either processes, working conditions or physical, chemical or biological agents in the workplace.

There is no more general obligation to carry out a risk assessment for a pregnant worker.


The EAT also confirmed that where the duty to carry out a risk assessment arises, there is nothing in the legislation to suggest that the employer is required to meet with the employee to satisfy its obligations. However, the employer is required to inform the employee of the results of the risk assessment, and provide them with comprehensive and relevant information on the risks to their health and safety as identified by the assessment.


Implications


The first pre-condition listed above should be fairly straightforward to assess. The second and third pre-conditions may be more problematic. In particular, the scope of the third condition is fairly broad, as it includes physical factors associated with the work such as noise, movement and postures, and other physical burdens.


Although in this case the EAT rejected O’Neill’s contention that a disciplinary procedure would be covered by the third pre-condition, it is difficult for employers to be certain that there is no risk from processes or working conditions.


Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Additionally, the EAT in this case confirmed that if no risk assessment is conducted when the duty is in fact triggered, this would be automatic unlawful discrimination. Clearly therefore, where there is an element of doubt, a sensible employer would carry out a risk assessment.

Joanna Wort, professional support lawyer, Charles Russell

Personnel Today

previous post
Weekly dilemma: ‘death in service’ benefit cuts
next post
Shaping the future – sustainability is the key to success

You may also like

Social mobility: Privately educated elite still leads UK...

18 Sep 2025

Ministers extend liability for umbrella companies’ unpaid PAYE

18 Sep 2025

MPs reject Lords’ amendments to Employment Rights Bill

16 Sep 2025

Judge in Supreme Court ruling said he’d ‘take...

15 Sep 2025

Employment lawyers voice AI fears on tribunal claims

15 Sep 2025

Day one rights to make 86% more cautious...

14 Sep 2025

How to steer EDI through a ‘permacrisis’

12 Sep 2025

Sainsbury’s manager awarded £60k following colleague’s aggressive behaviour

11 Sep 2025

Estate agent ‘demoted’ after desk move awarded £21k

11 Sep 2025

Employment Rights Bill U-turn unlikely, say legal experts

10 Sep 2025

  • Workplace health benefits need to be simplified SPONSORED | Long-term sickness...Read more
  • Work smart – stay well: Avoid unnecessary pain with centred ergonomics SPONSORED | If you often notice...Read more
  • Elevate your L&D strategy at the World of Learning 2025 SPONSORED | This October...Read more
  • How to employ a global workforce from the UK (webinar) WEBINAR | With an unpredictable...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits Live
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise