Constructive dismassal due to pregnancy??? Please help!
Discussion
AlmostUseful said:
Would she have been entitled to Mat pay anyway? When I switched jobs and my Mrs was pregnant I wasn't entitled to Pat pay because I'd not been with them for something like 126 days prior to the 15th week of pregnancy - not sure if Mat pay has the same rule.
Yes, baby due on 26th January, she has to be in a job for 26 weeks.Due date is 26th Jan, so would have been with the company ~33 weeks
jkh112 said:
As said above, I think your wife needs to have been employed for 26 weeks prior to the 15th week before due date to qualify for SMP but you should be able to easily check this on some govt website or mumsnet!
It is probably not a coincidence the meeting is before the end of probation, if the employer has concerns during the probation period then it would be useless to ignore them until probation has finished.
Hmmm you may be right.... either way if she is not in gainful employment (lets face it nobody would employ someone pregnant) does this affect maternity allowance... this is a minefield It is probably not a coincidence the meeting is before the end of probation, if the employer has concerns during the probation period then it would be useless to ignore them until probation has finished.
Moonhawk said:
SickFish said:
Yes, baby due on 26th January, she has to be in a job for 26 weeks.
Due date is 26th Jan, so would have been with the company ~33 weeks
But the link I gave above states that if she was already pregnant before starting the job (which based on her due date seems likely) - she is not entitled to statutory maternity pay.Due date is 26th Jan, so would have been with the company ~33 weeks
Butter Face 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.If they're planning on getting rid of her they will have a nailed on case with evidence otherwise they are leaving themselves wide open to claims.
If she does feel like she's being pushed because of the pregnancy then you need to do as above and write everything down, dates etc and build a defense.
For example: she hold 3x accounts where as account managers at HQ only deal with 1x account each....
Vaud said:
Thanks for that, very helpfulVaud 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...
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!
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:
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.
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.
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.
Breadvan72 said:
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?
V8 Fettler said:
What is the document that might be signed within 24 hours? Should this not be placed in front of your legal rep? Which could take a lot longer than 24 hours...
I have a copy of it, it is a "performance improvement note"....Basically she needs to sign that she accepts:
- System not being updated with correct information... (etc)
- Agreed "targets" to improve performance
- Agreed review date of above
My concern is that if she signs this document she is making a rod for her own back, she adamantly denies that she is underperforming and if she was to sign this it basically accepts guilt putting her in a very weak position come the review date.
But..... if she refuses to sign this document what are the consequences of this? The email was sent to her C.C.ing in the company solicitor so I think they are in this for the long haul....
desolate said:
SickFish said:
I have a copy of it, it is a "performance improvement note"....
Basically she needs to sign that she accepts:
- System not being updated with correct information... (etc)
- Agreed "targets" to improve performance
- Agreed review date of above
My concern is that if she signs this document she is making a rod for her own back, she adamantly denies that she is underperforming and if she was to sign this it basically accepts guilt putting her in a very weak position come the review date.
But..... if she refuses to sign this document what are the consequences of this? The email was sent to her C.C.ing in the company solicitor so I think they are in this for the long haul....
I wouldn't be signing anything and I would take BV up on his offer of a recommendation of a GOOD employment lawyer and consulting them ASAP.Basically she needs to sign that she accepts:
- System not being updated with correct information... (etc)
- Agreed "targets" to improve performance
- Agreed review date of above
My concern is that if she signs this document she is making a rod for her own back, she adamantly denies that she is underperforming and if she was to sign this it basically accepts guilt putting her in a very weak position come the review date.
But..... if she refuses to sign this document what are the consequences of this? The email was sent to her C.C.ing in the company solicitor so I think they are in this for the long haul....
I think they have sent her this to force her to agree to underperforming so they can then use this as leverage to dismiss her.
UPDATE:
The company, in response to her asking for 24hrs to review the email, have asked her to sign it today....
This just smacks of underhandedness and not giving her the opportunity to seek proper advice.
Need some help on some sort of response. I have told the Mrs to say she wants her legal rep to review it first but I don't think they will buy it and will try to force her hand.
The company, in response to her asking for 24hrs to review the email, have asked her to sign it today....
This just smacks of underhandedness and not giving her the opportunity to seek proper advice.
Need some help on some sort of response. I have told the Mrs to say she wants her legal rep to review it first but I don't think they will buy it and will try to force her hand.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff