Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Mother's victory on long hours

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

A SINGLE mother who could not look after her baby properly because she had to work 16-hour shifts at Heathrow Airport won her claim for sex discrimination yesterday. The case is being hailed as a victory for mothers forced to work long shifts to the detriment of family life.

Annette Cowley, 40, of Iver Heath in Buckinghamshire, was a cargo officer for South African Airways but was sacked last year after complaining about her hours. In a statement to the tribunal, Ms Cowley explained the difficulties of childcare when working back-to-back shifts and raised safety concerns about the dangers of driving across runways at Heathrow when very tired.

The employment tribunal at Reading found Ms Cowley had been unfairly sacked, ordered the airline to pay Ms Cowley three years' salary and criticised its "wholly unreasonable demands".

South African Airways said in a statement that the case arose out of a "very specific" set of circumstances and that it did not believe the decision meant that its overtime arrangements were "necessarily discriminatory, unfair or unenforceable." However, it said it would be looking at its working conditions.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in