Maternity Law and Redundancy...taking the p...!
Discussion
Need some advise -
My wife was due to return to work in two weeks time, going back after 1 years maternity. At all stages she has had to chase them, remind them and try to ensure that they are ready for her to return. Now two weeks before she is due to return, she calls them again as shes heard nothing only to find out that her job is now a full time role, therefore if she cant go back full time it could be redundancy... My thoughts are -
Is this correct, cant believe its just changed overnight, they must of had an idea when she contacted them weeks ago.
Can they say the role has changed therefore come back full time or pish off? why dont they hire another person part time to make up the role?
Just find it very frustrating as we have the little ones booked into nursery that have leaving notices.
The company isnt some small one man band - its a full on blue chip owned by BOA.
Any thoughts on this?
My wife was due to return to work in two weeks time, going back after 1 years maternity. At all stages she has had to chase them, remind them and try to ensure that they are ready for her to return. Now two weeks before she is due to return, she calls them again as shes heard nothing only to find out that her job is now a full time role, therefore if she cant go back full time it could be redundancy... My thoughts are -
Is this correct, cant believe its just changed overnight, they must of had an idea when she contacted them weeks ago.
Can they say the role has changed therefore come back full time or pish off? why dont they hire another person part time to make up the role?
Just find it very frustrating as we have the little ones booked into nursery that have leaving notices.
The company isnt some small one man band - its a full on blue chip owned by BOA.
Any thoughts on this?
There are arguements to both sides of this issue, however, this is as I see it.
If she went on to maternity leave whilst holding down a part time position, and during the period of maternity leave, the company has made the position full time, the role is not redundant, but merely has become potentially a job which two part time employees can hold.
The employer should be supporting the employee to transition back to work as smoothly as possible, therefore, they need to investigate the option of having two part time employees to cover the one job.
The job is redundant, not the person. It sounds as if the employer needs reminding of the basics.
If she went on to maternity leave whilst holding down a part time position, and during the period of maternity leave, the company has made the position full time, the role is not redundant, but merely has become potentially a job which two part time employees can hold.
The employer should be supporting the employee to transition back to work as smoothly as possible, therefore, they need to investigate the option of having two part time employees to cover the one job.
The job is redundant, not the person. It sounds as if the employer needs reminding of the basics.
davepoth said:
A bit naughty if she wasn't told that the job had gone full time until two weeks before she was due to come back, especially if it went full time a while ago.
More than a bit naughty, more like discrimination on the grounds of gender which could be an unlimited award at an ET!mad4amanda said:
davepoth said:
A bit naughty if she wasn't told that the job had gone full time until two weeks before she was due to come back, especially if it went full time a while ago.
More than a bit naughty, more like discrimination on the grounds of gender which could be an unlimited award at an ET!
please elaborate how gender discrimination comes into play in this instance? Complete with the thought train...davepoth said:
A bit naughty if she wasn't told that the job had gone full time until two weeks before she was due to come back, especially if it went full time a while ago.
Is it also naughty if a woman gives less than a week's notice that she won't be returning to work?The last two maternity leaves at my company ended like that.
Don
--
fergywales said:
mad4amanda said:
davepoth said:
A bit naughty if she wasn't told that the job had gone full time until two weeks before she was due to come back, especially if it went full time a while ago.
More than a bit naughty, more like discrimination on the grounds of gender which could be an unlimited award at an ET! please elaborate how gender discrimination comes into play in this instance? Complete with the thought train...I attended as an observer a case at ET whilst studying similar to this and the argument was as set out above, the claimant won a hefty award against by the sounds of it a much smaller company.
My advice to the OP would be to seek professional advice from either a union representative with the specialist training, an employment solicitor or ACAS directly.
mad4amanda, I can see you PoV, however, just to clarify a few points as I see them.
The company, if they have said the word 'redundancy' (as it seems in the OP), then they are indeed looking at constructive dismissal, as the role is NOT redundant (a company cannot make one or more PT roles redundant to replace them with a FT position, regardless of the potential cost saving the employer would make in doing this).
However, to bring gender discrimination in to this should it escalate to ET has the potential to change a valid claim into what appears as a vexatious claim, lowering the chance of a successful conclusion in favour of the claimant, taking into consideration the changes in the take up of maternity/paternity leave by both genders now. The case for the claimant, in explaining how the employer did not seek mutually effective solutions to transition back to work following maternity leave and with a change in circumstance for the company regarding the role the employee left to take maternity leave, are grounds enough for constructive dismissal.
Again, all as I see it, however, the potential pitfalls of muddying a claim against a straight claim are clear to me. Throwing in gender discrimination will not turn a claim for tens of thousands in to a claim for hundreds of thousands.
The company, if they have said the word 'redundancy' (as it seems in the OP), then they are indeed looking at constructive dismissal, as the role is NOT redundant (a company cannot make one or more PT roles redundant to replace them with a FT position, regardless of the potential cost saving the employer would make in doing this).
However, to bring gender discrimination in to this should it escalate to ET has the potential to change a valid claim into what appears as a vexatious claim, lowering the chance of a successful conclusion in favour of the claimant, taking into consideration the changes in the take up of maternity/paternity leave by both genders now. The case for the claimant, in explaining how the employer did not seek mutually effective solutions to transition back to work following maternity leave and with a change in circumstance for the company regarding the role the employee left to take maternity leave, are grounds enough for constructive dismissal.
Again, all as I see it, however, the potential pitfalls of muddying a claim against a straight claim are clear to me. Throwing in gender discrimination will not turn a claim for tens of thousands in to a claim for hundreds of thousands.
mad4amanda, why does everything have to come down to discrimination and suing the company for more money. It just smacks of greed to me.
Your attitude annoys me as much as the companies, yes they have done something wrong and they need to either put it right or a case of constructive dismissal should be brought.
It's this constant hysteria about discrimination against a whole raft of groups and the suing for damages on the back of this supposed discrimination that is causing problems.
Your attitude annoys me as much as the companies, yes they have done something wrong and they need to either put it right or a case of constructive dismissal should be brought.
It's this constant hysteria about discrimination against a whole raft of groups and the suing for damages on the back of this supposed discrimination that is causing problems.
GeraldSmith said:
In any legal situation you have to separate what you think should happen from what the law and legal procedure says. Mad4amanda gives a good overview of the legal situation, if you don't like it get mad at the law not the poster
+1 I wouldn't want to be on the Company's side, should this be handled in an Employee's Tribunal tbh.... GeraldSmith said:
In any legal situation you have to separate what you think should happen from what the law and legal procedure says. Mad4amanda gives a good overview of the legal situation, if you don't like it get mad at the law not the poster
The law, in the case of employment tribunals, takes a dim view of a matter being made more complex, and if anything that can be used by the employer's representative to point at as vexatious claims (gender discrimination being pressed as an aside to constructive dismissal) may be viewed as abuse of the system, and any ruling may reflect the actions of the claimant and/or their representation.Whilst ETs have to make a judgement based on the individual case, they will take in to account previous cases of similar issues. If they feel they are being asked to make a decision based on a PoV, rather than an established circumstance, it can (and has) acted against the claimant.
That would be the law, getting mad at the poster (or claimant), I feel...
Not my field but this does not sound like the Co. is following the rules here. IIRC you basically have to bend over backwards when an employee returns from mat leave, allowing for job share and all sorts.
If this were my wife and I wasn’t able to take a stroll to a colleagues office I would be starting off with having a look at what ACAS has to say.
If this were my wife and I wasn’t able to take a stroll to a colleagues office I would be starting off with having a look at what ACAS has to say.
Audicab I fail to understand how you think Im being greedy or suggesting greed . Indeed my background is in Operations Management and HR support with a view to maximising profit and managing risks . I am merely stating my POV that the company is operating in my view badly as there is a significant risk, which may be more than a simple case which we all appear agreed on of constuctive dissmisal . My expearience of preparing and attending ET for a top 250 FTSE tells me that the matter would be taken very seriously especially when a "blue chip" with all their suggested resources and capacity for flexibility comes up against a new mother who wants to work .
As for the paternity question well if that happened the same then perhaps that could be the case. Paternity used to be less of an issue as it was only a 2 week period.
However it is 4 years since I have been active in this area so I take on Fergywales` views as I think they have mine. I disagree however that it would be seen as a vexatious case, particularly as a new Mother may have more issues in finding other suitable employment of a equitable nature in the current economic climate. but as I have said I am not current with analysis of the take up of maternity/paternity which may have a bearing on the prognosis custom and practice may well have changed but Id be astonished if it had moved so far as to preclude a legitimate claim.
My advice to the OP remains the same. The company appears not to be behaving responsibly so you need advice from a professional either a union, employment law solicitor or indeed ACAS.
As for the paternity question well if that happened the same then perhaps that could be the case. Paternity used to be less of an issue as it was only a 2 week period.
However it is 4 years since I have been active in this area so I take on Fergywales` views as I think they have mine. I disagree however that it would be seen as a vexatious case, particularly as a new Mother may have more issues in finding other suitable employment of a equitable nature in the current economic climate. but as I have said I am not current with analysis of the take up of maternity/paternity which may have a bearing on the prognosis custom and practice may well have changed but Id be astonished if it had moved so far as to preclude a legitimate claim.
My advice to the OP remains the same. The company appears not to be behaving responsibly so you need advice from a professional either a union, employment law solicitor or indeed ACAS.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff