Constructive dismassal due to pregnancy??? Please help!

[anonymous-user]

Jasandjules said:

hondansx said:

She is not protected for unfair dismissal in her probation period.

But she is protected for discrimination on grounds of sex....

ETA if you want OP I can send you a document setting out quite a lot about maternity law...

Edited by Jasandjules on Tuesday 29th July 17:18

There is no need for the "but", because the OP's partner IS protected against unfair dismissal. Look it up.

[pork911]

of course pin them to the wall as much as you are able and desire but this devils advocate thing -

she's not very good with pressure
started early june
felt let lagged, she thought due to hols
working extra hours and is still struggling
found out early july she's pregnant even though thought couldn't (a pretty big thing, no?)

of course extra protections are required for the unscrupulous employers
but she was within her probationary period and while pregnancy doesn't make a probationer bad nor does it make a bad probationer good

yes it appears the screws were turned after announcing but given only up to 4 weeks in to probation leading up to that would they not have been giving her a greater chance before then like they would any probationer so that they might come good?


hopefully you won't find that highly offensive and my first line holds true, just throwing it out there

[SickFish]

pork911 said:

of course pin them to the wall as much as you are able and desire but this devils advocate thing -

she's not very good with pressure
started early june
felt let lagged, she thought due to hols
working extra hours and is still struggling
found out early july she's pregnant even though thought couldn't (a pretty big thing, no?)

of course extra protections are required for the unscrupulous employers
but she was within her probationary period and while pregnancy doesn't make a probationer bad nor does it make a bad probationer good

yes it appears the screws were turned after announcing but given only up to 4 weeks in to probation leading up to that would they not have been giving her a greater chance before then like they would any probationer so that they might come good?


hopefully you won't find that highly offensive and my first line holds true, just throwing it out there

I see your point of view but that's not really how it has been.

With regards to pressure, work wise pressure is fine. It's when people are manipulating her and cranking on the pressure to do something..... Eg sign the form.

When she had 1 account to manage it was all good and well, then she was loaded with extra accounts, which started out fine, but then the workload increased causing her to do extra hours (with no extra pay) and still is struggling to get through it all.

Without being disrespectful to the Mrs, her role isn't a particularly difficult one, it's an administrative role. Its just the sheer enormity of the work to be done cannot physically be done in a day.

[pork911]

SickFish said:

I see your point of view but that's not really how it has been.

With regards to pressure, work wise pressure is fine. It's when people are manipulating her and cranking on the pressure to do something..... Eg sign the form.

When she had 1 account to manage it was all good and well, then she was loaded with extra accounts, which started out fine, but then the workload increased causing her to do extra hours (with no extra pay) and still is struggling to get through it all.

Without being disrespectful to the Mrs, her role isn't a particularly difficult one, it's an administrative role. Its just the sheer enormity of the work to be done cannot physically be done in a day.

thanks for taking it in spirit it was intended

admin work for a big insurer is likely to be bulky though?

anyhow, as i say just throwing it out there, screw them as much as can while on balance it remains worthwhile

[SickFish]

pork911 said:

SickFish said:

I see your point of view but that's not really how it has been.

With regards to pressure, work wise pressure is fine. It's when people are manipulating her and cranking on the pressure to do something..... Eg sign the form.

When she had 1 account to manage it was all good and well, then she was loaded with extra accounts, which started out fine, but then the workload increased causing her to do extra hours (with no extra pay) and still is struggling to get through it all.

Without being disrespectful to the Mrs, her role isn't a particularly difficult one, it's an administrative role. Its just the sheer enormity of the work to be done cannot physically be done in a day.

thanks for taking it in spirit it was intended

admin work for a big insurer is likely to be bulky though?

anyhow, as i say just throwing it out there, screw them as much as can while on balance it remains worthwhile

No I understood what you were saying

The thing is.... She's the ONLY one dealing with 3+ accounts at her "level" everyone else has just the 1 account to deal with, so you can imagine the "bulk" of the workload, doing 3x more than anyone else parallel to her in the company

Edited by SickFish on Tuesday 29th July 23:11

[Red Devil]

Breadvan72 said:

Jasandjules said:

hondansx said:

She is not protected for unfair dismissal in her probation period.

But she is protected for discrimination on grounds of sex....

ETA if you want OP I can send you a document setting out quite a lot about maternity law...

Edited by Jasandjules on Tuesday 29th July 17:18

There is no need for the "but", because the OP's partner IS protected against unfair dismissal. Look it up.

BV is 100% correct.

Before I retired, I had to deal with line managers who were distressingly ignorant about employment law.
They often created situations which required fire-fighting measures to remedy.

SickFish said:

If she gets sacked/ dismissed, we will be up st creek as she will get no mat leave pay....

Assuming the dates quoted are correct she won't be entitled to SMP even if the employer does the right thing.
She will need to check if she fulfills the criteria for maternity allowance.
If she does, there will still be a period of several weeks before the payments kick in.

[anonymous-user]

As the employer has lawyered up, I suggest you do also, OP. David Ludlow at Barlow Robbins would be my suggestion for this one. Don't sign any docs for the time being.

[dancole90]

On a slight off topic. Congratulations on the news! The Missus was told she probably wouldn't be able to conceive and all attempts have failed but seeing things like this always gives us hope!

[PurpleMoonlight]

The employer appears to be establishing a paper trail to justify the termination of employment on performance grounds should the OP's wife seek to claim discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy.

I've said this on another thread, but I feel it's worth saying again.

Jobs come and go. If any employer is hell bent of sacking you they will do so and take their chances in an employment tribunal. Whether that is worth fighting is a personal decision.

OP, you have been blessed with something you thought wouldn't happen. I seems to me you would both be better of concentrating on this child now rather that incurring all the stress and potential cost of fighting this employer very far. It may help her subsequent employment prospects if she resigns rather than waits until sacked.

If your wife has previous employment to this the chances are she can claim Maternity Allowance direct from the Government.

Whatever you decide, good luck.

[SickFish]

Breadvan72 said:

As the employer has lawyered up, I suggest you do also, OP. David Ludlow at Barlow Robbins would be my suggestion for this one. Don't sign any docs for the time being.

I think their solicitor also doubles as an HR bod so not sure what the angle is with regards to C.Cing him in but we certainly smell a rat.

Her hand has been forced with regards to the signing of the document, however, we have responded "with comments" refuting all blame (I have gone into a little more detail in reply to your email - thanks again for that)

ETA we will be contacting David Ludlow ASAP.

[Rovinghawk]

SickFish said:

The thing is.... She's the ONLY one dealing with 3+ accounts at her "level" everyone else has just the 1 account to deal with, so you can imagine the "bulk" of the workload, doing 3x more than anyone else parallel to her in the company

Are the accounts of equivalent size as opposed to her having 3 light accounts vs one heavy account? How would either you or your wife know those details?

Have you also taken into account that you have only heard one side of the story? Not accusing Mrs S of telling fibs, but would you accept that her version of events will naturally be biased towards what suits her?

[Vaud]

Rovinghawk said:

Are the accounts of equivalent size as opposed to her having 3 light accounts vs one heavy account? How would either you or your wife know those details?

Have you also taken into account that you have only heard one side of the story? Not accusing Mrs S of telling fibs, but would you accept that her version of events will naturally be biased towards what suits her?

It's irrelevant though isn't it?

She is pregnant. She is protected. They have made, by all accounts no attempt to do H&S review of the situation. Even if the workload was identical, they must conduct a review - if she is working long hours, then they need to remove the risk or offer alternative work, or put her on paid leave? I though the rules were clear. It isn't about comparing her workload directly with a colleagues, it's about a H&S review of the risks?

(IANAL, etc)

[Rovinghawk]

Vaud said:

It's irrelevant though isn't it?

She is pregnant. She is protected.

She is protected against pregnancy discrimination. She is not protected from being 'underperforming' during a trial period.

As I said (Devil's Advocate), Sickfish would appear to be relying purely her version of events as he is presumably unable to establish the case from the employer's side.

[Vaud]

Rovinghawk said:

She is protected against pregnancy discrimination. She is not protected from being 'underperforming' during a trial period.

As I said (Devil's Advocate), Sickfish would appear to be relying purely her version of events as he is presumably unable to establish the case from the employer's side.

But is the "trial period" effectively a moot point?

She has advised them that she is pregnant, they haven't conducted a risk assessment (which could then effectively change the terms of the trial success criteria).

I ask - aren't her rights to at least to have the role risk assessed taking precedence over the "trial period" as there has been a fundamental change in H&S risk between hiring and measurement period?

If she was a site work who had to carry bricks sometimes - her announced pregnancy would require a risk assessment. In that scenario - does that imply they could fire her - or set her on a performance improvement plan - because she can't do that part of her duties?

(IANAL, etc)

[Rovinghawk]

Vaud said:

there has been a fundamental change in H&S risk between hiring and measurement period?

In effect, she sits at the same desk & answers the same phone, uses the same pen to fill in the same forms. I don't see the increase in H&S risk.

Vaud said:

If she was a site work who had to carry bricks sometimes

You would appear to be arguing based on what isn't the case rather than what is.

Question to Sickfish- do you have any independent verification of what you have been told by your wife?

[Vaud]

Rovinghawk said:

Vaud said:

there has been a fundamental change in H&S risk between hiring and measurement period?

In effect, she sits at the same desk & answers the same phone, uses the same pen to fill in the same forms. I don't see the increase in H&S risk.

Would workload not be part of a h&s assessment, regardless of what her colleagues accept? Long hours and workload are a h&s consideration, the tools are minimally relevant in this case?

[anonymous-user]

Rovinghawk said:

You would appear to be arguing based on what isn't the case rather than what is.

Question to Sickfish- do you have any independent verification of what you have been told by your wife?

What do you think about the requirement to sign the document?

[Rovinghawk]

desolate said:

What do you think about the requirement to sign the document?

Poor practice by the employer, on the information given.

[SickFish]

Rovinghawk said:

Vaud said:

there has been a fundamental change in H&S risk between hiring and measurement period?

In effect, she sits at the same desk & answers the same phone, uses the same pen to fill in the same forms. I don't see the increase in H&S risk.

Vaud said:

If she was a site work who had to carry bricks sometimes

You would appear to be arguing based on what isn't the case rather than what is.

Question to Sickfish- do you have any independent verification of what you have been told by your wife?

Why would I have independant verification, I trust what she is saying. She knows how the accounts are split due to having to go on a training course to sit with other colleagues in other offices, doing the same thing as her so is in no doubt what everyone else does.

This is a bit of a moot point anyway, because although the workload is unmanageable in her daily hours (hence doing around an hour an half free work a day) the PIP is focusing on data entry timeliness and accuracy- She is not being given the data to enter, which her line manager is fully aware of...... Which has been reiterated further up the chain of command now. It would appear that her line manager has not been doing anything with this information.

I trust Mrs S, she is not one to lie and having worked with her in an office (it's how we met) I know from first hand experience she is not work shy

Edited by SickFish on Thursday 31st July 07:02

[ofcorsa]

Is it possible her colleagues workloads have also been ramped up?