Constructive dismassal due to pregnancy??? Please help!
Discussion
Vaud said:
Did the employer conduct a risk assessment when she told them she was pregnant?
https://www.gov.uk/working-when-pregnant-your-righ...
No, H & S rep has asked to carry this out but has fallen upon deaf earshttps://www.gov.uk/working-when-pregnant-your-righ...
Just to throw another viewpoint out there, is the firm that the OP's partner works for particularly large or small.
For small businesses the costs of a new staff member plus training then having to fund maternity leave shortly after whilst also hiring another member of staff to cover for maternity leave and having to train/pay them is bloody expensive! If you consider that you can understand why a employer would be a bit pissed off by a new staff member springing "im pregnant " on them within a few weeks of starting.
I don't have the numbers to hand but it may well be cheaper to get sued for unfair dismissal than having to pay for two staff over 12 months plus having to deal with a situation where the original staff member wants to come back but only on part time!!
For small businesses the costs of a new staff member plus training then having to fund maternity leave shortly after whilst also hiring another member of staff to cover for maternity leave and having to train/pay them is bloody expensive! If you consider that you can understand why a employer would be a bit pissed off by a new staff member springing "im pregnant " on them within a few weeks of starting.
I don't have the numbers to hand but it may well be cheaper to get sued for unfair dismissal than having to pay for two staff over 12 months plus having to deal with a situation where the original staff member wants to come back but only on part time!!
aka_kerrly said:
Just to throw another viewpoint out there, is the firm that the OP's partner works for particularly large or small.
For small businesses the costs of a new staff member plus training then having to fund maternity leave shortly after whilst also hiring another member of staff to cover for maternity leave and having to train/pay them is bloody expensive! If you consider that you can understand why a employer would be a bit pissed off by a new staff member springing "im pregnant " on them within a few weeks of starting.
I don't have the numbers to hand but it may well be cheaper to get sued for unfair dismissal than having to pay for two staff over 12 months plus having to deal with a situation where the original staff member wants to come back but only on part time!!
No, large national company involved in insurance.For small businesses the costs of a new staff member plus training then having to fund maternity leave shortly after whilst also hiring another member of staff to cover for maternity leave and having to train/pay them is bloody expensive! If you consider that you can understand why a employer would be a bit pissed off by a new staff member springing "im pregnant " on them within a few weeks of starting.
I don't have the numbers to hand but it may well be cheaper to get sued for unfair dismissal than having to pay for two staff over 12 months plus having to deal with a situation where the original staff member wants to come back but only on part time!!
To be perfectly honest, we didn't know she was pregnant when she started, we were told we couldn't have kids.....
desolate said:
You really need to confirm the may pay eligibility and work out the best way forward.
Agreed... but I fear she may not be eligibible for statuary mat pay, but there is the mat allowance for people who are not eligible for statuary mat pay, but I am not sure how being dismissed from a job impacts this.Think I will have to read into this in depth tonight..... what fun!
SickFish said:
Agreed... but I fear she may not be eligibible for statuary mat pay, but there is the mat allowance for people who are not eligible for statuary mat pay, but I am not sure how being dismissed from a job impacts this.
Think I will have to read into this in depth tonight..... what fun!
If it's a large company this almost certainly won't be "policy" - just the application of policy by local management. Think I will have to read into this in depth tonight..... what fun!
See how the meeting goes and if you're not happy pay for an hour or so with a top lawyer - it will be well worth it
hondansx said:
She is not protected for unfair dismissal in her probation period.
Rubbish. Dismissal for a reason connected to pregnancy or maternity is automatically unfair and no qualifying period of service is required to obtain protection.OP, you will get lots of "advice" here from people who haven't the first clue what they are talking about, so the thing to do is sift that out and be guided by people with relevant experience. Succinctly, the employer would be mad to treat your partner adversely for a reason connected with her pregnancy. She is hedged around with legal protection and the employer could be making a costly mistake. In the first instance, perhaps raise an internal grievance, but if need be instruct a lawyer to send a suitable warning shot across the bows of the employer. I can recommend some suitable contacts if you PM me.
desolate said:
SickFish said:
Agreed... but I fear she may not be eligibible for statuary mat pay, but there is the mat allowance for people who are not eligible for statuary mat pay, but I am not sure how being dismissed from a job impacts this.
Think I will have to read into this in depth tonight..... what fun!
If it's a large company this almost certainly won't be "policy" - just the application of policy by local management. Think I will have to read into this in depth tonight..... what fun!
See how the meeting goes and if you're not happy pay for an hour or so with a top lawyer - it will be well worth it
Breadvan72 said:
Rubbish. Dismissal for a reason connected to pregnancy or maternity is automatically unfair and no qualifying period of service is required to obtain protection.
OP, you will get lots of "advice" here from people who haven't the first clue what they are talking about, so the thing to do is sift that out and be guided by people with relevant experience. Succinctly, the employer would be mad to treat your partner adversely for a reason connected with her pregnancy. She is hedged around with legal protection and the employer could be making a costly mistake. In the first instance, perhaps raise an internal grievance, but if need be instruct a lawyer to send a suitable warning shot across the bows of the employer. I can recommend some suitable contacts if you PM me.
^^^^OP, you will get lots of "advice" here from people who haven't the first clue what they are talking about, so the thing to do is sift that out and be guided by people with relevant experience. Succinctly, the employer would be mad to treat your partner adversely for a reason connected with her pregnancy. She is hedged around with legal protection and the employer could be making a costly mistake. In the first instance, perhaps raise an internal grievance, but if need be instruct a lawyer to send a suitable warning shot across the bows of the employer. I can recommend some suitable contacts if you PM me.
What he said.
OP - BV72 is, unlike many, a real legal type thingumabob, and whilst at times he can be terse, he is one of the most helpful bods on PH for legal lawyers type things.
Breadvan72 said:
Rubbish. Dismissal for a reason connected to pregnancy or maternity is automatically unfair and no qualifying period of service is required to obtain protection.
OP, you will get lots of "advice" here from people who haven't the first clue what they are talking about, so the thing to do is sift that out and be guided by people with relevant experience. Succinctly, the employer would be mad to treat your partner adversely for a reason connected with her pregnancy. She is hedged around with legal protection and the employer could be making a costly mistake. In the first instance, perhaps raise an internal grievance, but if need be instruct a lawyer to send a suitable warning shot across the bows of the employer. I can recommend some suitable contacts if you PM me.
I can vouch 100% for this advice through positive experienceOP, you will get lots of "advice" here from people who haven't the first clue what they are talking about, so the thing to do is sift that out and be guided by people with relevant experience. Succinctly, the employer would be mad to treat your partner adversely for a reason connected with her pregnancy. She is hedged around with legal protection and the employer could be making a costly mistake. In the first instance, perhaps raise an internal grievance, but if need be instruct a lawyer to send a suitable warning shot across the bows of the employer. I can recommend some suitable contacts if you PM me.
Breadvan72 said:
hondansx said:
She is not protected for unfair dismissal in her probation period.
Rubbish. Dismissal for a reason connected to pregnancy or maternity is automatically unfair and no qualifying period of service is required to obtain protection.OP, you will get lots of "advice" here from people who haven't the first clue what they are talking about, so the thing to do is sift that out and be guided by people with relevant experience. Succinctly, the employer would be mad to treat your partner adversely for a reason connected with her pregnancy. She is hedged around with legal protection and the employer could be making a costly mistake. In the first instance, perhaps raise an internal grievance, but if need be instruct a lawyer to send a suitable warning shot across the bows of the employer. I can recommend some suitable contacts if you PM me.
Vaud said:
Breadvan72 said:
Rubbish. Dismissal for a reason connected to pregnancy or maternity is automatically unfair and no qualifying period of service is required to obtain protection.
OP, you will get lots of "advice" here from people who haven't the first clue what they are talking about, so the thing to do is sift that out and be guided by people with relevant experience. Succinctly, the employer would be mad to treat your partner adversely for a reason connected with her pregnancy. She is hedged around with legal protection and the employer could be making a costly mistake. In the first instance, perhaps raise an internal grievance, but if need be instruct a lawyer to send a suitable warning shot across the bows of the employer. I can recommend some suitable contacts if you PM me.
^^^^OP, you will get lots of "advice" here from people who haven't the first clue what they are talking about, so the thing to do is sift that out and be guided by people with relevant experience. Succinctly, the employer would be mad to treat your partner adversely for a reason connected with her pregnancy. She is hedged around with legal protection and the employer could be making a costly mistake. In the first instance, perhaps raise an internal grievance, but if need be instruct a lawyer to send a suitable warning shot across the bows of the employer. I can recommend some suitable contacts if you PM me.
What he said.
OP - BV72 is, unlike many, a real legal type thingumabob, and whilst at times he can be terse, he is one of the most helpful bods on PH for legal lawyers type things.
Centurion07 said:
hondansx said:
She is not protected for unfair dismissal in her probation period.
Pretty sure the pregnancy thing changes that slightly. I stand to be corrected though.No correction required. You are right. The readiness of people to give advice about things that they know nothing about never ceases to amaze me. Am I a bit terse about such things? You bet I am.
Breadvan72 said:
Centurion07 said:
hondansx said:
She is not protected for unfair dismissal in her probation period.
Pretty sure the pregnancy thing changes that slightly. I stand to be corrected though.No correction required. You are right. The readiness of people to give advice about things that they know nothing about never ceases to amaze me. Am I a bit terse about such things? You bet I am.
Generally speaking, the advice to an employer is to steer clear of any adverse action directed towards a pregnant employee, save in the clearest cases of misconduct, as the risks of a finding that the action is related to the pregnancy are too high. It would be a bold (or ill informed) employer that dismissed a pregnant employee on grounds of alleged under performance. Perhaps the employer has been taking advice from well intentioned but misinformed punters such as some featured above!
For the employee, the best advice is to politely stand your ground, avoiding confrontation if possible but being assertive of pregnancy rights if need be.
For the employee, the best advice is to politely stand your ground, avoiding confrontation if possible but being assertive of pregnancy rights if need be.
Breadvan72 said:
Generally speaking, the advice to an employer is to steer clear of any adverse action directed towards a pregnant employee, save in the clearest cases of misconduct, as the risks of a finding that the action is related to the pregnancy are too high. It would be a bold (or ill informed) employer that dismissed a pregnant employee on grounds of alleged under performance. Perhaps the employer has been taking advice from well intentioned but misinformed punters such as some featured above!
For the employee, the best advice is to politely stand your ground, avoiding confrontation if possible but being assertive of pregnancy rights if need be.
Thank you.For the employee, the best advice is to politely stand your ground, avoiding confrontation if possible but being assertive of pregnancy rights if need be.
So far I have said:
- Ask for 24 hours to review the document before signing and returning.
- log/ document daily activity as this is what is being brought into question.
- Continue to make her local line manager aware that the amount of workload in unmanageable and is causing undue stress (which has been made clear in the past verbally but I have said to put it in writing).
Agree? disagree? What are your thoughts?
SickFish said:
aka_kerrly said:
Just to throw another viewpoint out there, is the firm that the OP's partner works for particularly large or small.
For small businesses the costs of a new staff member plus training then having to fund maternity leave shortly after whilst also hiring another member of staff to cover for maternity leave and having to train/pay them is bloody expensive! If you consider that you can understand why a employer would be a bit pissed off by a new staff member springing "im pregnant " on them within a few weeks of starting.
I don't have the numbers to hand but it may well be cheaper to get sued for unfair dismissal than having to pay for two staff over 12 months plus having to deal with a situation where the original staff member wants to come back but only on part time!!
No, large national company involved in insurance.For small businesses the costs of a new staff member plus training then having to fund maternity leave shortly after whilst also hiring another member of staff to cover for maternity leave and having to train/pay them is bloody expensive! If you consider that you can understand why a employer would be a bit pissed off by a new staff member springing "im pregnant " on them within a few weeks of starting.
I don't have the numbers to hand but it may well be cheaper to get sued for unfair dismissal than having to pay for two staff over 12 months plus having to deal with a situation where the original staff member wants to come back but only on part time!!
To be perfectly honest, we didn't know she was pregnant when she started, we were told we couldn't have kids.....
I wasn't trying to justify the employers actions but based on my experience of staffing costs and the disruption caused by 6 relatively new/junior members of staff becoming pregnant over a 15 month period in a company with just 20 staff in total I can see why some employers might behave the way your partner's employer is.
SickFish said:
Breadvan72 said:
Generally speaking, the advice to an employer is to steer clear of any adverse action directed towards a pregnant employee, save in the clearest cases of misconduct, as the risks of a finding that the action is related to the pregnancy are too high. It would be a bold (or ill informed) employer that dismissed a pregnant employee on grounds of alleged under performance. Perhaps the employer has been taking advice from well intentioned but misinformed punters such as some featured above!
For the employee, the best advice is to politely stand your ground, avoiding confrontation if possible but being assertive of pregnancy rights if need be.
Thank you.For the employee, the best advice is to politely stand your ground, avoiding confrontation if possible but being assertive of pregnancy rights if need be.
So far I have said:
- Ask for 24 hours to review the document before signing and returning.
- log/ document daily activity as this is what is being brought into question.
- Continue to make her local line manager aware that the amount of workload in unmanageable and is causing undue stress (which has been made clear in the past verbally but I have said to put it in writing).
Agree? disagree? What are your thoughts?
aka_kerrly said:
SickFish said:
aka_kerrly said:
Just to throw another viewpoint out there, is the firm that the OP's partner works for particularly large or small.
For small businesses the costs of a new staff member plus training then having to fund maternity leave shortly after whilst also hiring another member of staff to cover for maternity leave and having to train/pay them is bloody expensive! If you consider that you can understand why a employer would be a bit pissed off by a new staff member springing "im pregnant " on them within a few weeks of starting.
I don't have the numbers to hand but it may well be cheaper to get sued for unfair dismissal than having to pay for two staff over 12 months plus having to deal with a situation where the original staff member wants to come back but only on part time!!
No, large national company involved in insurance.For small businesses the costs of a new staff member plus training then having to fund maternity leave shortly after whilst also hiring another member of staff to cover for maternity leave and having to train/pay them is bloody expensive! If you consider that you can understand why a employer would be a bit pissed off by a new staff member springing "im pregnant " on them within a few weeks of starting.
I don't have the numbers to hand but it may well be cheaper to get sued for unfair dismissal than having to pay for two staff over 12 months plus having to deal with a situation where the original staff member wants to come back but only on part time!!
To be perfectly honest, we didn't know she was pregnant when she started, we were told we couldn't have kids.....
I wasn't trying to justify the employers actions but based on my experience of staffing costs and the disruption caused by 6 relatively new/junior members of staff becoming pregnant over a 15 month period in a company with just 20 staff in total I can see why some employers might behave the way your partner's employer is.
No, I knew where you were coming from, it may be the case, as where she works it is a relatively small satellite branch with not many office staff.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff