Three members of the Georgetown City Constabulary have been dismissed for becoming pregnant.
Although both the constitution and the Prevention of Discrimination Act expressly prohibit discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy, the dismissal letters seen by Stabroek News state that the pregnancies were a violation of a department policy that prohibits female constabulary officers from becoming pregnant during the first two years.
“The development (pregnancy) constitutes a clear violation of the City Constabulary Standing Order section 4:11 (Para) J 11,” they state.
Several female constabulary officers told Stabroek News that the prohibition against pregnancy in the first two years of service has always been the policy of the constabulary. They explained that during training, officers are told that if they get pregnant within two years of employment they could face dismissal. They further explained that persons who do become pregnant are given the options of ending their pregnancies or resigning. “They could either get an abortion or resign from the job and return after six months to the same registration number,” one constabulary officer explained.
Chief Constabulary Officer Andrew Foo confirmed several of the claims. “We ask our female recruits not to become pregnant during the first two years of their employment, as it is considered a probationary period, during which we determine their suitability. Becoming pregnant would seriously limit their ability to function but if they do become pregnant they have the option of resigning and at the end of their maternity once their performance has been good, they can return to the constabulary,” he said.
Asked if there is a similar provision for male constabulary officers, Foo responded, “They don’t get pregnant after all.”
He further noted that considering the composition of the constabulary, which has a large number of female officers, it is difficult to consider relaxing the policy as he can’t imagine a pregnant female officer serving in several posts. “Can you imagine a pregnant officer constantly having to walk up and down, opening the gate when you come in or patrolling at the Independence Arch?” he asked.
While the decision to dismiss may have been in keeping with the policy, the policy itself is clearly discriminatory under Guyana’s laws.
Article 149 1(a) of the Constitution states that “No law shall make any provision that is discriminatory either of itself or in its effect” and 149 1(b) states that “no person shall be treated in a discriminatory manner by any person acting by virtue of any written law or in the performance of the functions of any public office or any public authority.” Article 149 2 specifies that “discriminatory” includes affording different treatment to different persons attributable to several factors, including gender and pregnancy.
In addition, Section 4 of the Prevention of Discrimination Act lists pregnancy among the “Prohibited Grounds of Discrimination.”
Guyana is also a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which calls for the protection of women’s rights in the workplace. Article 11 para 2(a) of CEDAW specifically states, “In order to prevent discrimination against women on the grounds of marriage or maternity and to ensure their effective right to work, State Parties shall take appropriate measures: to prohibit, subject to the imposition of sanctions, dismissal on the grounds of pregnancy or of maternity leave.”
However, by stipulating two years of service as a probationary period the City Constabulary may seek coverage for enforcing the policy using the Termination of Employment and Severance Act. Section 9 of the Act states, “A new employee may be required to serve a probationary period of employment but the employer or employee may terminate the employment at any time during the probationary period for any reason and without notice.”
Similar policies have been implemented and enforced in other countries around the world. In May of 2013, United Television Ghana reported that several female fire service officers were dismissed for becoming pregnant. The report noted that the dismissal letter received by the officers cited “Conditions of Service,” which stated that the officers were expected to “serve the first three years before [they] could get pregnant. However, when they “violated” the said Conditions of Service they were dismissed with “immediate effect.”
In 2010, a British woman who was fired 40 minutes after telling her bosses she was pregnant was awarded a settlement when a panel from the British Human Rights Commission ruled that her dismissal was discriminatory. She was dismissed little more than a month after being employed, during what her employers argued was her probationary period.
