You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
So my company is going through a restructure.
My role has 18 people and 14 positions so we have to apply for our jobs.
However I have since found out they have matched 1 person to one of these roles because she is on maternity leave, apparently it is the law.
Anybody know if this is true?
It doesn’t seem fair to me to everybody else…
it is tricky to make someone who is on maternity leave redundant IIRC. Possible but unless its done very carefully would be an open and shut unfair dismissal 'cos its very hard to show that she is not being chosen because of her pregnancy so probably the usual HR incompetence
From memory tho and I am not certain.
No idea if it’s the law but pregnant women are pretty untouchable in redundancy etc, if only because it’s a legal minefield if not done properly. (Mrs Kilo is in HR management) or wot tj said 😉
You are very well protected when on mat leave - not entirely fair to drag someone already (likely) stressed out of their mind and with their focus entirely elsewhere through a redundancy process
You can be made redundant while on maternity leave as long as there is a reason for it that is not related to being on maternity leave.
For historical reasons i.e. it was common to just sack a woman who went on maternity leave and get someone else in to save money, there are legal protections to stop people being made redundant while on maternity leave. That doesn't mean your company cant make her redundant but it probably massively increases the chances of legal action being taken and it looks like they've decided to sidestep this.
As above, my understanding is that whilst you can make someone who's pregnant/on mat leave redundant, it's an HR nightmare and so they will try and avoid it if possible.
You can argue if it's fair or not, but I doubt you'll get much for your arguments.
So basically they picked the easy and safe option and it’s up to them if that’s what they want to do.
So basically they picked the easy and safe option and it’s up to them if that’s what they want to do.
Yep. Or she could be a good worker and one they want to keep.
Also to add IME HR always muck up redundancy so my advice to anyone facing redundancy is to keep quiet, keep copies of everything, back up anythig said to you in email ( "just to be clear from our conversation on such and such a day I understadn this" so you always have a paper trail) wait for HR to make a mess of proceedures, threaten tribunal for unfair dismissal and await big payout to shut up and go away
So basically they picked the easy and safe option and it’s up to them if that’s what they want to do.
I think you can ask for the criteria as to how the decision was made, but any HR team worth their salt will make sure there are no holes in that.
You're then into the area of making noise when it's redundancy time, do you want to be the noisy on or keep your head down. "The squeaking wheel doesn't always get the grease, sometimes it gets replaced".
Or, you could get yourself pregnant...
jonnybike
Free MemberSo basically they picked the easy and safe option and it’s up to them if that’s what they want to do.
What do you suggest they do? Asking them to drag a new mum through the redundancy/application/interiew process isn't likely to help your own cause
As TJ says, study and keep copies of everything to make sure they are doing the job properly.
When I was a union rep I remember HR saying that there were laws against discrimination against people on part time contracts/maternity leave etc, but there was nothing against ‘discrimination’ against full time employees.
I believe, if HR want to be totally fair, they would also have to offer everyone equal chance at the redundancy. The person on maternity leave might very well decide to take that. A lot has changed in their life recently and I assume redundancy wasn't a consideration when they started their maternity leave.
Key question is, do you want to stay or get the package?
They're unlikely to be doing anything wrong IME.
Don't fixate on this, 17 into 13 isn't terrible odds - focus on the positives and start prepping for interview.
What do you suggest they do? Asking them to drag a new mum through the redundancy/application/interiew process isn’t likely to help your own cause
As TJ says, study and keep copies of everything to make sure they are doing the job properly.
Not suggesting anything I just wondered if it was actually something that they had to do or if they were just telling me they had to.
Although I see no reason why everybody shouldn't go through the same process its the only fair thing to do, I wont be suggesting it though as there is no point.
Key question is, do you want to stay or get the package?
If I can keep my job I would keep it but I don't want to end up in a role I don't want to do so would sooner take the package in that case.
Quite often in these situations, they still expect the same work to be done by the reduced team which means more work for the remaining members. It's common forthe stronger team members to see this as an opportunity to move on.
Getting to keep your job might not be the win it first appears. Best advice is to take it as a prod to start looking around (obviously depending on exact circumstances).
Although I see no reason why everybody shouldn’t go through the same process its the only fair thing to do
I think you have this around the wrong way - it (imo) would be far less fair to drag a new mum through the redundancy process. For all you know she would have to bring the baby with her to the interview in case it needed fed
CAB seem quite clear - yes you can be made redundant but if alternative work is available you should be offered this and be offered it before any non-pregnant employees.
IMO this is basically what they are doing here. There are currently 18 people and 14 roles so to prove that the pregnant person's very specific role is redundant is almost impossible and in any event there is alternate work they can do (ie one of the 14 roles) so they get first dibs.
Just concentrate on what you can control and not what you cannot.
Is there ever just one lot of redundancies? It can often signal the beginning of the end, at least the end of the job/company/culture as you know it.
Checked with my HR expert.
Women on maternity have a statutory entitlement to be offered alternative roles over others, which is what appears to have happened.
What does the law say?
The law makes it clear that:
During the protected period unfavourable treatment of a woman
because she is pregnant or on maternity leave is unlawful. This means a woman doesn’t have to compare her treatment with anyone else to show direct pregnancy and maternity discrimination, see scenario 1 below.
A woman on maternity leave has the right to return to the same job before she left; an interim employee cannot be given her job even if you think the person is a better employee.
Selecting a woman for redundancy because of her pregnancy, maternity leave or a related reason is automatically unfair dismissal as well as being unlawful discrimination.
Failure to consult a woman on maternity leave about possible redundancy is likely to be unlawful discrimination.
A woman made redundant while on maternity leave must be offered any suitable alternative vacancy if you have one. She doesn’t need to apply for it.
Is there ever just one lot of redundancies? It can often signal the beginning of the end, at least the end of the job/company/culture as you know it.
Yeah the whole company is going through a restructure. To be honest it has all been going downhill for a while but my job is pretty well paid and not too bad its just the company that is the problem.
I don't think this will be the end of it but I plan on sticking it out as long as I can unless they try to put me in a position I hate or in another location..
I agree with the OP that it doesn't seem fair that the person on mat leave is automatically safe. Comments about them not being able to interview aren't relevant in my experience as those who are taying or going are always known in advance based on past performance etc not off the back of an interview.
Comments about them not being able to interview aren’t relevant in my experience as those who are taying or going are always known in advance based on past performance etc not off the back of an interview.
Should just do away with all the interviews then.
Also bear in mind that it could have been a year since the company has last seen the person on mat leave
I agree with the OP that it doesn’t seem fair that the person on mat leave is automatically safe. Comments about them not being able to interview aren’t relevant
The issue is, history shows that those on mat leave need this protection otherwise they are the first to go in a restructure...
I agree with the OP that it doesn’t seem fair that the person on mat leave is automatically safe.
As dannybgoode points out, there's so much protection around pregnant women because historically they've been some of the most vulnerable workers. There are still 13 jobs and 17 candidates, it hasn't changed the odds much anyway.