Context
On August 29th, a meeting was held between the Social and Economic Committee and the management (as it does every approximately 2 months). We all received the minutes of this meeting by email on September 8th.
A colleague submitted the following question:
What is the company’s policy regarding bringing a dog in training to assist/guide the blind to the workplace?
To what the management replied:
While the initiative is commendable, the company’s policy does not allow the presence of dogs in the workplace, whether they are assistance dogs in training or not. This rule aims to guarantee the comfort of all employees by avoiding potential problems related to cleanliness, allergies, or phobias.
That’s not very dog-gone nice, is it?
The “or not” at the end of the first sentence is questionable. There are two possible interpretations:
- whether they are assistance dogs in training OR already trained (which would be outright scandalous)
- whether they are assistance dogs in training OR regular dogs (which would be slightly better, but…)
In any case, it’s illegal!
What the law says
From the website service-public.gouv.fr we can read:
Guide dogs for the blind or assistance dogs are admitted in all public places. They are also admitted in transport and in professional activity premises, training places, and educational establishments.
The same applies when the dogs are accompanied by the person in charge of their education during their entire training period.
Denying access to public places for guide dogs for the blind and assistance dogs is punishable by a fine of up to 450 € for an individual and 2,250 € for a legal entity.
Our reminder of the law (what law??)
Given this situation, we asked the management (through the Social and Economic Committee) for more details on the legal grounds for this decision. We also mentioned that it seemed illegal and included the link to the service-public.gouv.fr page in our request (after all, everyone is entitled to make mistakes).
Unfortunately, the management is sticking to its position while acknowledging the illegality of its decision:
As we have already mentioned, we are aware that the law allows access to guide dogs in training. However, allowing dogs in the premises can lead to risks in terms of hygiene, health, and safety, such as allergies or possible aggressiveness of the dog, which, remember, is only in training and therefore not yet fully educated. As an employer, it is our responsibility to guarantee the health and safety of our employees. We therefore refuse to take any risks in this regard.
Our position consists solely of reconciling the rights of each individual while ensuring the proper functioning of the company and collective safety.
This constitutes an obstacle to the accessibility of people with disabilities (since it hinders the training of dogs, and in any case, most of the arguments put forward also apply to a already trained dog). A person in this situation would therefore be entitled to not feel welcome in our company.
Addressing concerns
We understand that the presence of a dog may initially raise certain fears and questions. However, we are fortunate to have large premises where space is not lacking. We are also surrounded by a vast green space that is easily accessible.
We therefore believe that it is entirely possible to have a dog and any allergic or phobic people in the same premises without the situation being imposed.
Regarding hygiene, if guide and assistance dogs are accepted in food stores, restaurants, and hospitals, there should be no problem with a marketing tool development company (promise, no client will find hair in their emails).
We regret that the management did not delve deeper into the subject (for example, by contacting a specialized association) and that preconceptions prevailed.