Unfair disciplinary procedures at work whilst pregnant
Discussion
Afternoon all, I need some advice if possible on an issue "a friend" is having at work. I've changed a few details (to avoid any issues with someone reading this), but the important facts remain the same. It's a bit long winded, sorry.
She has worked at this firm, a marketing agency, for a 18 months. She was employed by the owner of the company after being approached (they knew each other from the industry). She was employed into one role, but was never given a job description, and has since been nudged into a different role in the same area of the company (instead of going out to find work, she now prices work).
There have been a few issues, the only member of her team is incapable of doing the job and off sick a lot. She is managing the pricing department, and without a team is having to do all the quotes herself. The company are essentially overloading her with work, and she has expressed her concerns a few times. They were bringing in someone else to work for her, but they took too long to arrange a contract and she went somewhere else. She was then essentially told to work over christmas, sacrificing her booked leave, meaning she has had less than the statutory minimum leave days in 2015 (just 18 + bank holidays).
Alongside this, she is 15 weeks pregnant, and was due to let the company know on her return to work today. She told her manager (who wasn't in the office), who said he would speak to HR (don't know if this happened). Soon after she was taken into a room by HR and they read a list of issues to her that her manager, and the owner of the company have. They range from taking too long to submit a particular bid, to a single mistake on pricing a bid (someone else numbers were wrong), to not managing the her team properly (i.e. not getting rid of the only member). She can answer all the concerns with valid reasons.
They have mentioned that some of these may be gross misconduct, which I think is over the top. It looks like they are starting some sort of procedure with her. All this is lead by the HR boss who is known for not being particularly pleasant. Basically it is clear that the boss of the company wants her out, and is instructing HR to make this happen.
On top of this, the only person in her team has handed her notice in, after months of pressure to do so by HR. Also, her manager doesn't seem concerned about her performance when asked, he says he simply answered an email from HR about any mistakes she has made recently.
I'm genuinely stuck as to what she should do. Anyone got any advice? Current plan is to simply answer all their concerns and convince them she can do the job.
People keep telling me that she is safe as she is pregnant, but I genuinely fear they are going to push her out regardless (sorry for the pun).
She has worked at this firm, a marketing agency, for a 18 months. She was employed by the owner of the company after being approached (they knew each other from the industry). She was employed into one role, but was never given a job description, and has since been nudged into a different role in the same area of the company (instead of going out to find work, she now prices work).
There have been a few issues, the only member of her team is incapable of doing the job and off sick a lot. She is managing the pricing department, and without a team is having to do all the quotes herself. The company are essentially overloading her with work, and she has expressed her concerns a few times. They were bringing in someone else to work for her, but they took too long to arrange a contract and she went somewhere else. She was then essentially told to work over christmas, sacrificing her booked leave, meaning she has had less than the statutory minimum leave days in 2015 (just 18 + bank holidays).
Alongside this, she is 15 weeks pregnant, and was due to let the company know on her return to work today. She told her manager (who wasn't in the office), who said he would speak to HR (don't know if this happened). Soon after she was taken into a room by HR and they read a list of issues to her that her manager, and the owner of the company have. They range from taking too long to submit a particular bid, to a single mistake on pricing a bid (someone else numbers were wrong), to not managing the her team properly (i.e. not getting rid of the only member). She can answer all the concerns with valid reasons.
They have mentioned that some of these may be gross misconduct, which I think is over the top. It looks like they are starting some sort of procedure with her. All this is lead by the HR boss who is known for not being particularly pleasant. Basically it is clear that the boss of the company wants her out, and is instructing HR to make this happen.
On top of this, the only person in her team has handed her notice in, after months of pressure to do so by HR. Also, her manager doesn't seem concerned about her performance when asked, he says he simply answered an email from HR about any mistakes she has made recently.
I'm genuinely stuck as to what she should do. Anyone got any advice? Current plan is to simply answer all their concerns and convince them she can do the job.
People keep telling me that she is safe as she is pregnant, but I genuinely fear they are going to push her out regardless (sorry for the pun).
Devils advocate -
firstly am unsure what her being pregnant really has to do with it.
Most firms would have prepared a disciplinary in advance so can't see her announcing she's pregnant then them immediately going for removal.
secondly, if they are that under the pump with work she must be really poor at her job to get rid when it sounds like manpower is needed.
Maybe she's just bloody awful at her job and the potential dismissal is legitimate.
however she got the job, no matter how bad anyone else is or how pregnant she is doesn't matter - sometimes there isn't a mysterious collusion and conspiracy going on to fire someone, maybe they're just really poor at what they do.
Gross Misconduct generally means malicious crapness rather than accidental crapness so perhaps an honest self discovery is in order to really know she's she's being binned.
firstly am unsure what her being pregnant really has to do with it.
Most firms would have prepared a disciplinary in advance so can't see her announcing she's pregnant then them immediately going for removal.
secondly, if they are that under the pump with work she must be really poor at her job to get rid when it sounds like manpower is needed.
Maybe she's just bloody awful at her job and the potential dismissal is legitimate.
however she got the job, no matter how bad anyone else is or how pregnant she is doesn't matter - sometimes there isn't a mysterious collusion and conspiracy going on to fire someone, maybe they're just really poor at what they do.
Gross Misconduct generally means malicious crapness rather than accidental crapness so perhaps an honest self discovery is in order to really know she's she's being binned.
Devils Advocate II
They could be maliciously trying to remove her.
Is she a member of any professional body or union? If so, engage them for support and advice.
She has 2 choices; fight or flight.
Assuming fight; gather a similar body of evidence, but this time from a positive perspective: any 'thankyou' emails or letters; evidence of work successfully concluded; copies of any annual appraisals or subsequent mid-period assessment.
Get hard evidence of not being able to take leave and work overload.
Read up on unfair dismissal and let the hiring manager know in a formal interview (ask for one now; make sure she takes a witness (friend/colleague/union rep)) that she will follow this through.
If flight is the preferred option; either resign now or negotiate a settlement to leave early.
Good luck!
They could be maliciously trying to remove her.
Is she a member of any professional body or union? If so, engage them for support and advice.
She has 2 choices; fight or flight.
Assuming fight; gather a similar body of evidence, but this time from a positive perspective: any 'thankyou' emails or letters; evidence of work successfully concluded; copies of any annual appraisals or subsequent mid-period assessment.
Get hard evidence of not being able to take leave and work overload.
Read up on unfair dismissal and let the hiring manager know in a formal interview (ask for one now; make sure she takes a witness (friend/colleague/union rep)) that she will follow this through.
If flight is the preferred option; either resign now or negotiate a settlement to leave early.
Good luck!
Thanks, I may do that.
First of all, thanks for the Devil's advocates above. She has a very good previous record, so I am 100% sure that Devils Advocate no. 2 is correct. This is not to do with the pregnancy, and they are clutching at straws for things she has done wrong.
She has been given a written version of the concerns, and a copy of the disciplinary procedure, and an interview/investigation with a member of HR will take place next week. She is putting together a thorough response to all the comments made. They said that the results of this interview will dictate whether a disciplinary hearing will happen.
She was told that she is not allowed to have someone in the first "interview" above. She doesnt need anyone there, but is this correct?
First of all, thanks for the Devil's advocates above. She has a very good previous record, so I am 100% sure that Devils Advocate no. 2 is correct. This is not to do with the pregnancy, and they are clutching at straws for things she has done wrong.
She has been given a written version of the concerns, and a copy of the disciplinary procedure, and an interview/investigation with a member of HR will take place next week. She is putting together a thorough response to all the comments made. They said that the results of this interview will dictate whether a disciplinary hearing will happen.
She was told that she is not allowed to have someone in the first "interview" above. She doesnt need anyone there, but is this correct?
Sarkmeister said:
Thanks, I may do that.
First of all, thanks for the Devil's advocates above. She has a very good previous record, so I am 100% sure that Devils Advocate no. 2 is correct. This is not to do with the pregnancy, and they are clutching at straws for things she has done wrong.
She has been given a written version of the concerns, and a copy of the disciplinary procedure, and an interview/investigation with a member of HR will take place next week. She is putting together a thorough response to all the comments made. They said that the results of this interview will dictate whether a disciplinary hearing will happen.
She was told that she is not allowed to have someone in the first "interview" above. She doesnt need anyone there, but is this correct?
I smell BSFirst of all, thanks for the Devil's advocates above. She has a very good previous record, so I am 100% sure that Devils Advocate no. 2 is correct. This is not to do with the pregnancy, and they are clutching at straws for things she has done wrong.
She has been given a written version of the concerns, and a copy of the disciplinary procedure, and an interview/investigation with a member of HR will take place next week. She is putting together a thorough response to all the comments made. They said that the results of this interview will dictate whether a disciplinary hearing will happen.
She was told that she is not allowed to have someone in the first "interview" above. She doesnt need anyone there, but is this correct?
there are specific protections against discrimination while pregnant
the 2 year rule does not apply
http://www.masonbullock.co.uk/two-years/
"Automatically unfair dismissals
There are certain types of dismissals that are automatically unfair. This means that the employee does not have to have worked for 2 years in order to make a claim.
Examples include employees who are dismissed for any of the following reasons:-
They asked to be released for jury service;
The employee is pregnant or has recently given birth;
The employee was intending to take action to enforce a statutory right, such as the right to be paid the National Minimum Wage."
the 2 year rule does not apply
http://www.masonbullock.co.uk/two-years/
"Automatically unfair dismissals
There are certain types of dismissals that are automatically unfair. This means that the employee does not have to have worked for 2 years in order to make a claim.
Examples include employees who are dismissed for any of the following reasons:-
They asked to be released for jury service;
The employee is pregnant or has recently given birth;
The employee was intending to take action to enforce a statutory right, such as the right to be paid the National Minimum Wage."
cirian75 said:
Sarkmeister said:
Thanks, I may do that.
First of all, thanks for the Devil's advocates above. She has a very good previous record, so I am 100% sure that Devils Advocate no. 2 is correct. This is not to do with the pregnancy, and they are clutching at straws for things she has done wrong.
She has been given a written version of the concerns, and a copy of the disciplinary procedure, and an interview/investigation with a member of HR will take place next week. She is putting together a thorough response to all the comments made. They said that the results of this interview will dictate whether a disciplinary hearing will happen.
She was told that she is not allowed to have someone in the first "interview" above. She doesnt need anyone there, but is this correct?
I smell BSFirst of all, thanks for the Devil's advocates above. She has a very good previous record, so I am 100% sure that Devils Advocate no. 2 is correct. This is not to do with the pregnancy, and they are clutching at straws for things she has done wrong.
She has been given a written version of the concerns, and a copy of the disciplinary procedure, and an interview/investigation with a member of HR will take place next week. She is putting together a thorough response to all the comments made. They said that the results of this interview will dictate whether a disciplinary hearing will happen.
She was told that she is not allowed to have someone in the first "interview" above. She doesnt need anyone there, but is this correct?
Sarkmeister said:
BS by the employer or me? They have said she can have someone present if it goes to disciplinary, but not in the review next week where they will go through the concerns and give her a chance to answer them.
That is, in my experience, correct. The first meeting is a "fact finding" meeting and not a disciplinary. Since it is technically supposed to be a simple question and answer (not interrogation or questioning decisions made) there is no requirement for the employee to be allowed a representative. I am not an employment lawyer - but have dealt with many cases and this has been the advice given to me.curlie467 said:
Looking at it another way, what does she hope to gain from any of this?
It sounds like not a very nice place to work anyway, forced to work holidays, overworked and now being picked at.
Sorry for taking so long to come back to this. It sounds like not a very nice place to work anyway, forced to work holidays, overworked and now being picked at.
Her biggest problem with a lot of this is that it is just grossly unfair. Some of the stuff they have against her is almost comical. She has worked very hard for this company and they have turned on her. I'll not go into full details, but in one she was given incorrect figures by a senior technical person in the company, and she included them in a quote. They are accusing her of negligence because she didn't notice that one wasn't correct, even though she isn't the technical authority on these numbers.
From a more practical point of view though, she just wants to be in employment up until maternity leave starts, and the opportunity to go back once maternity leave is complete (whether or not she would want to I don't know).
Is there any way that they might have known she was pregnant already? That's the key here.
At the moment they have no problem since they can say the process started before the pregnancy was announced, so she loses the unfair dismissal protection that pregnancy offers her. If she can prove that they did know that she was pregnant and that affected their decision (wanting to start things before she officially told them to ensure she could be fired with no problem) then she would be able to claim unfair dismissal on the grounds of discrimination due to pregnancy.
At the moment they have no problem since they can say the process started before the pregnancy was announced, so she loses the unfair dismissal protection that pregnancy offers her. If she can prove that they did know that she was pregnant and that affected their decision (wanting to start things before she officially told them to ensure she could be fired with no problem) then she would be able to claim unfair dismissal on the grounds of discrimination due to pregnancy.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff