Attendance:

• Sarah Driscoll 

• Thomas Lidgerwood

• Tim Bishop

• Jake Joyce 

• Jack Tandy

• Sarah Fraser

Apologies:

• Paul Deakin

• Alex Morris

• Matthew Windsor

Meeting Notes

1. Purpose of the Meeting

• Discussing the framework for classifying discriminatory behavior and determining appropriate responses.

• Ensuring staff safety and creating a clear but flexible approach to handling discrimination on the job.

• Finalizing terminology and categorization of incidents (Mild, Moderate, Severe).

2. Key Discussions & Decisions

Incident Classification Framework

Mild Incidents

• Staff may feel uncomfortable but not necessarily unsafe.

• Examples include inappropriate comments, offensive items, or environmental discomfort (e.g., racist artwork, pornography).

• No extreme responses required—staff discretion applies.

• The goal is to allow staff to intervene if they feel necessary but not impose rigid rules.

Moderate Incidents

• Repeated mild behavior despite staff intervention or office involvement.

• Includes casual racism, sexism, or discriminatory behavior that persists after being addressed.

• If a customer continues after being told to stop, it escalates from mild to moderate.

• Involves intervention from management, and potential commitment from the customer to cease behavior.

• Could result in job suspension or swapping out staff.

Severe Incidents

• Threats of violence, extreme racism, or direct discrimination against protected groups.

• Immediate termination of service if the customer makes threats or violent statements (e.g., “X group should be bombed”).

• If behavior is repeatedly severe or puts staff at risk, company policy will block future bookings from the customer.

3. Handling Offensive Items on the Job

• Discussion about whether encountering racist, sexist, or offensive material (e.g., flags, artwork, books, pornography) should be considered a discriminatory act.

• Decision: The presence of such items alone does not constitute discrimination, but if combined with behavior (e.g., comments from the customer), it can contribute to the classification level.

• Need to balance recognizing offensive materials while not policing personal belongings unnecessarily.

4. Indirect vs. Direct Discrimination

• Debate over whether discrimination must be directed at an individual or if general comments about a group (e.g., “X people should be bombed”) also warrant a severe classification.

• Decision: Indirect discrimination (statements about a group not present) still counts, but intervention levels depend on severity and repetition.

• Repeated indirect discrimination that has been addressed but continues will escalate from moderate to severe.

5. Staff Empowerment & Intervention

• Encouragement for staff to take action when encountering discrimination rather than ignoring it.

• Staff should:

1. Address the issue directly with the customer if comfortable.

2. Escalate to the office if necessary.

3. Use judgment to determine whether to walk away from a job.

• The goal is to create a system where staff feel supported rather than forced into uncomfortable decisions.

6. Next Steps & Action Items

• Testing the System: Next meeting to apply the framework to specific test cases to refine it further.

• Clarify Interventions: Define how and when staff should escalate incidents to management.

• Compile cases: Matt W to collate anonymised previous incidents to test with new system

7. Meeting Conclusion

• Agreement that no system will be perfect, but this framework creates a structured approach.

• Acceptance that long discussions will still occur in borderline cases.

• Everyone is “satisfactorily unhappy,” meaning a good balance has been reached.

Next Meeting Scheduled for 7am next Thursday.