Discrimination during maternity leave
Discussion
divetheworld said:
That's interesting and logical.
In essence, an individual who was on ML and not intending to return at the very end of the maximum entitlement could miss out on a 'potential' job. They put in a claim and get some compo. Not ideal on balance, but the alternative you describe would be a complete travesty.
No one said the law was perfect, but its the best balance we have?
Of course, the employer could just avoid all the trouble by following the law, and not appointing the person on ML if they didn't want them in the role.In essence, an individual who was on ML and not intending to return at the very end of the maximum entitlement could miss out on a 'potential' job. They put in a claim and get some compo. Not ideal on balance, but the alternative you describe would be a complete travesty.
No one said the law was perfect, but its the best balance we have?
_dobbo_ said:
Of course, the employer could just avoid all the trouble by following the law, and not appointing the person on ML if they didn't want them in the role.
Yes.I read the OP and the following posts as explaining that the decision to return to work was not yet made.
Putting myself in the same shoes, if a new role was made and that I would have been a direct consideration for promotion to but I was not even informed, let alone considered for it, that would erode my feelings towards the employer considerably.
It's that oversight that has caused the employment issue here. In the end the employer has accepted that they have done wrong and they whole things been resolved amicably. I don't see what anyone's issue with that is, let alone feel it right to twist the facts to make some kind of side argument.
Edited by JustinP1 on Friday 9th October 14:48
_dobbo_ said:
divetheworld said:
That's interesting and logical.
In essence, an individual who was on ML and not intending to return at the very end of the maximum entitlement could miss out on a 'potential' job. They put in a claim and get some compo. Not ideal on balance, but the alternative you describe would be a complete travesty.
No one said the law was perfect, but its the best balance we have?
Of course, the employer could just avoid all the trouble by following the law, and not appointing the person on ML if they didn't want them in the role.In essence, an individual who was on ML and not intending to return at the very end of the maximum entitlement could miss out on a 'potential' job. They put in a claim and get some compo. Not ideal on balance, but the alternative you describe would be a complete travesty.
No one said the law was perfect, but its the best balance we have?
Actus Reus said:
_dobbo_ said:
Of course, the employer could just avoid all the trouble by following the law, and not appointing the person on ML if they didn't want them in the role.
Bingo![hypothetical this time, to avoid offence of course].
JustinP1 said:
You beat me to it!
One thing I am thankful for for this thread remaining open, is before a couple of days ago I thought I was a bit 'traditional' in my thinking. I count myself very lucky in that since our daughter was born 4 years ago, my wife has not been forced to return to work, so has been able to bring her up in the home.
Additionally I thought my political/government viewpoint was probably slightly right of centre, being a businessman and employer. However, compared to some of the views on here, I think I'm closer to Jeremy Corbyn - and that's scary...
Seriously, I followed this thread because I was interested to know where the law lies and is interpreted because I am an employer myself and I like to keep abreast of things as I have a duty to treat my employees in a lawful way. Each page has comments that are a new 'wow' to me...!
I agree with this. Specifically for me, this case is not about maintaining a position while off, its about affording the opportunity to progress while off. Its not like she was being demoted, I've seen no suggestion that was the intent.One thing I am thankful for for this thread remaining open, is before a couple of days ago I thought I was a bit 'traditional' in my thinking. I count myself very lucky in that since our daughter was born 4 years ago, my wife has not been forced to return to work, so has been able to bring her up in the home.
Additionally I thought my political/government viewpoint was probably slightly right of centre, being a businessman and employer. However, compared to some of the views on here, I think I'm closer to Jeremy Corbyn - and that's scary...
Seriously, I followed this thread because I was interested to know where the law lies and is interpreted because I am an employer myself and I like to keep abreast of things as I have a duty to treat my employees in a lawful way. Each page has comments that are a new 'wow' to me...!
Ironically, there does some a degree of sexism even on the maternity leave supporters side as its nearly always expressed as a woman and maternity when the same rights are available to men (as I understand it). Maybe if we talked about people on parental leave and moved away from women and maternity, we'd debunk some of the sexist overtones.
Richie Slow said:
Why would an employer be expected to invite someone to apply if they had already categorically decided that that particular person was unsuitable and would not be successful, just to show that they hadn't discriminated against her solely on the grounds of the ML?
[hypothetical this time, to avoid offence of course].
I think this was covered about 40 pages ago. If I recall, its impossible to prove so the offer must be made to follow the law which is there to prevent BV's scenario above.[hypothetical this time, to avoid offence of course].
divetheworld said:
I think this was covered about 40 pages ago. If I recall, its impossible to prove so the offer must be made to follow the law which is there to prevent BV's scenario above.
If the personnel record and annual appraisals showed an individual to be generally troublesome an unfavoured that would be quite compelling. As would a report of marginal competence or a history of difficulties in dealing with responsiblity, work colleagues, work load or many other issues. If all or any of that was clearly documented in advance of the case it might carry some weight. I don't agree that it would be an impossible position to defend.If any of the above were true then there would have been no realistic opportunity for her and she was therefore not deprived of one.
Edited by Richie Slow on Friday 9th October 15:04
That's true - you can defend it if the employee is manifestly unsuitable - either because the employment record is terrible or because of something like the role being clearly inappropriate, for example if your tea lady on maternity leave applies for the CFO's job.
If it's a tight call though it's an easy enough duty to dispense.
If it's a tight call though it's an easy enough duty to dispense.
Richie Slow said:
divetheworld said:
That's interesting and logical.
In essence, an individual who was on ML and not intending to return at the very end of the maximum entitlement could miss out on a 'potential' job. They put in a claim and get some compo. Not ideal on balance, but the alternative you describe would be a complete travesty.
No one said the law was perfect, but its the best balance we have?
Ah but if she didn't intend on returning that might bother you, me and the bloke in the pub but it doesn't interfere with her claim.In essence, an individual who was on ML and not intending to return at the very end of the maximum entitlement could miss out on a 'potential' job. They put in a claim and get some compo. Not ideal on balance, but the alternative you describe would be a complete travesty.
No one said the law was perfect, but its the best balance we have?
(2) IIRC, Mrs OP had not yet decided whether or not to return, but was thinking that she might not.
(3) If an employee really had no intention of returning in any circumstances, she would not have suffered any loss, and so could not claim any. Not this case, AIUI.
PurpleMoonlight said:
RobinOakapple said:
I wonder if maternity related legislation and benefits has had any affect on small businesses employee selection procedures?
Of course it does. They just can't openly admit it.I should think that the only people filling their offices etc with dolly birds now are those people who are not personally affected by the financial implications of the almost inevitable pregnancies.
Actus Reus said:
That's true - you can defend it if the employee is manifestly unsuitable - either because the employment record is terrible or because of something like the role being clearly inappropriate, for example if your tea lady on maternity leave applies for the CFO's job.
If it's a tight call though it's an easy enough duty to dispense.
I can't see it being any more onerous to prove/disprove than her being disadvantaged specifically as a result of being on ML. A suggestion of 'might have been' is just flim-flam isn't it when the fact is viewed in isolation?If it's a tight call though it's an easy enough duty to dispense.
RobinOakapple said:
...
I should think now that the only people filling their offices etc with dolly birds now are those people who are not personally affected by the financial implications of the almost inevitable pregnancies.
"Dolly birds", really? Have you been to a place of employment recently? There are a lot of women at many of them. Maybe you shouldn't go and see. The sight of emancipated women being economically active might upset you. I should think now that the only people filling their offices etc with dolly birds now are those people who are not personally affected by the financial implications of the almost inevitable pregnancies.
Breadvan72 said:
RobinOakapple said:
...
I should think now that the only people filling their offices etc with dolly birds now are those people who are not personally affected by the financial implications of the almost inevitable pregnancies.
"Dolly birds", really? Have you been to a place of employment recently? There are a lot of women at many of them. Maybe you shouldn't go and see. The sight of emancipated women being economically active might upset you. I should think now that the only people filling their offices etc with dolly birds now are those people who are not personally affected by the financial implications of the almost inevitable pregnancies.
Either way, what a prick.
RobinOakapple said:
I should think that the only people filling their offices etc with dolly birds now are those people who are not personally affected by the financial implications of the almost inevitable pregnancies.
Rubbish.Most company directors know that if you use two forms of birth control there's very little chance of getting them pregnant.
JustinP1 said:
Rubbish.
Most company directors know that if you use two forms of birth control there's very little chance of getting them pregnant.
when interviewing I always check that the birds subscribe to the "one up the bum, no harm done" theory.Most company directors know that if you use two forms of birth control there's very little chance of getting them pregnant.
So I am relaxed about the issues relating to statutory maternity leave, and we have amazing quality frippet wandering round the office.
Loving life.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff