Discrimination during maternity leave
Discussion
The Surveyor said:
It may have been answered earlier in the thread, I read most but got bored with the Blackberry guff.
To what extent does the employer need to ensure that the employee on ML actually finds out about the position though? Would they not have a very robust defence if they could demonstrate that they sent out an email to your wifes personal email address, and that they advertised the post externally giving both internal and external candidates equal notice, therefore showing that they have actually behaved reasonably, and have not attempted to hide the vacancy from your wife in any way.
Are they actually required to proactively seek out all employees who are on ML, or off with stress, sick leave, on holiday etc when they advertise a position to ensure that they are aware of the position?
I always thought 'Discrimination' is where an individual receives lessor treatment, not a lack of better treatment.
Yeah, I think if they proffer an email that was sent to her gmail that's it, case closed. We can't find such an email though.To what extent does the employer need to ensure that the employee on ML actually finds out about the position though? Would they not have a very robust defence if they could demonstrate that they sent out an email to your wifes personal email address, and that they advertised the post externally giving both internal and external candidates equal notice, therefore showing that they have actually behaved reasonably, and have not attempted to hide the vacancy from your wife in any way.
Are they actually required to proactively seek out all employees who are on ML, or off with stress, sick leave, on holiday etc when they advertise a position to ensure that they are aware of the position?
I always thought 'Discrimination' is where an individual receives lessor treatment, not a lack of better treatment.
jimmybobby said:
I have to agree with this point. I work with various national corganisations and when any office news occurs it spreads like wildfire and thats just when discussing the fact that someone ate the last doughnut nevermind a job opening or someone changing jobs.
The rumour mill isn't going to exempt you from your legal obligations though.As to common sense, you may be right, but I didn't post in SP&L in order to discuss my wife's CV or the other candidates' CVs - she may very well have not got the job - we don't know enough about the field, but she should have been informed. That was what I asked early on and that's the discussion here - common sense isn't what this is about whether or not you want it to be.
As to your relevant experience working with various 'national organisations', I act for some of the biggest corporations in the world, as does Breadvan. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference, sadly, important as I consider myself to be.
daemon said:
Brilliant. Thats a classic post!
That made me laugh out loud.
Have you got to the but where he wishes my wife and I well, and then, somewhat cryptically, implores us 'not to make any mistakes in life'? That's my favourite post so far. I've already made a mistake though as my train is delayed and I could probably have got an earlier one.That made me laugh out loud.
PurpleMoonlight said:
I wasn't aware you had started anything yet.
You are so blinkered with being wronged and the prospect of compensation that you refuse to admit even the slightest possibility that she hasn't been.
I don't think there is that possibility, so I won't 'admit' anything, no. I'm not a lawyer passing comment like BV, I asked if there was a prima facie case in the eyes of the professionals on PH. I have meanwhile researched some law myself and come to the conclusion that there is a case. If it comes before a tribunal I'll post the tribunal's findings, though I'd lay money that the employer will offer a compromise agreement to make this go away without an unsightly tribunal.You are so blinkered with being wronged and the prospect of compensation that you refuse to admit even the slightest possibility that she hasn't been.
I base this as much on my knowledge of the facts as I do of the law - and with the greatest respect you are not in command of any of the facts and, it seems, little of the law.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Do you work for this company so are 100% certain?
No, it may have been advertised internally. Even the OP doesn't know whether it was or wasn't.
If it wasn't and someone was promoted on merit why would they still be obliged to notify the OP's wife. If they are, as you claim, then she is gaining an advantage over other employees.
It was advertised externally as mentioned previously. I don't have a copy of the internal advert as we never saw it, but an advert on the intranet would be usual - indeed it would be against internal procedure NOT to do so. You may wish not to as it doesn't support your view, but I think it's very safe to infer that it was advertised internally by HR as jobs always are.No, it may have been advertised internally. Even the OP doesn't know whether it was or wasn't.
If it wasn't and someone was promoted on merit why would they still be obliged to notify the OP's wife. If they are, as you claim, then she is gaining an advantage over other employees.
This discussion (regarding who should be told etc) is more about the reasonableness test - which is not a matter of statute. The bloke loading the coke machine isn't reasonably expected to be in line for a sales director role, whereas a sales manager would be. This is open to interpretation, but my wife's case sails through a reasonableness test on the grounds that the woman who got the job as previously doing the same job as my wife. I'll say again that I am well aware that that doesn't mean she would get the job, merely that she could reasonably be expected to have an interest in it and thus the right to be told about it.
RichieSlow said:
Yes, I saw that. You're suggesting that an employer is forced to use a process that might prevent them from appointing on merit, but put the fair treatment of potential candidates first. Why should an employer not be free to chose who they invite to apply?
It's it law or convention?
Both - it's called common law which is a hybrid, in simple terms of both. See my post above - the reasonableness test applies. And this isn't about appointing people, it's about informing them and giving them the chance to apply. It's it law or convention?
king thing steamed up in the shower. It was a real automatic though.JonV8V said:
'It should let a qualified accountant know...' - is that law or just good practice? (Irrespective of maternity)
There's no evidence that the company let other internal applicants apply so don't jump to that conclusion.
edit - an internal appointment is not evidence of an internal application process
A couple of calls to friends within the organisation yesterday has confirmed that the job appeared on the company intranet and thus applications were invited internally. It's not conclusive, but near as damn it.There's no evidence that the company let other internal applicants apply so don't jump to that conclusion.
edit - an internal appointment is not evidence of an internal application process
Edited by JonV8V on Tuesday 21st July 07:44
BV, a barrister of years' experience, answered my question on page 1. We are now into the void, where he is still being questioned and all lawyers are apparently shysters trying to confuse laymen (which, it turns out, is surprisingly easy to do).
To update on progress my wife will be meeting with HR and her manager in August. I'll update things then.
To update on progress my wife will be meeting with HR and her manager in August. I'll update things then.
Mandat said:
In effect, all that he said was "maybe". It's fine if that was sufficient to satisfy your query, but others (myself included) were interested to learn the more detailed reasoning of the circumstances in which discrimination might occur, and how the law operates in such situations. This is the reason for the other 36 pages of debate, on what is after all a discussion forum.
I'm not complaining - I've been on PH long enough to have expected a debate, but people aren't just questioning the law here, a lot of people are questioning BV as though they have more or better knowledge, mostly obtained via Google. It's been entertaining though and informative. BTW BV writes 'may have a claim' because all lawyers do that - it's just about the first thing law school teaches you in fact. Everything is couched those terms until it's been settled by a court particularly when discussing something as an academic point. ETA: and also because of course BV doesn't know all the facts.
Edited by Actus Reus on Wednesday 22 July 13:24
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff