Told Job won't be there after maternity leave....UPDATED 24/10.08

alice's_mum

Am after some advice for my sister, who as the heading says has found out that when her maternity leave is up the company will not have a job for her as they are giving it to the "maternity" cover person they employed.

Sister works for a big out of town clothing and house goods retailer M............. She is one of their high flying Marketing peeps, she had a baby in the summer and yesterday 3½ months into maternity leave she was called to a meeting with HR and Chair and told that they are re-Structuring and she hasn't a job to go back to!!!!

Can any one give me any advice to give her, obviously her next step is to talk to a solicitor, but what can she expect.... she's got all her previous assessments and she's always been given fantastic reports and bonus payments etc, the chair said "It's only since you've been off that we realized we needed a change of management" so as good as if you hadn't gone on maternity leave we wouldn't be having this conversation. She is currently in pieces and has had no sleep, combination of baby and worry, she is the main breadwinner, hubby has recently signed a contract to work part time as it was assumed she was going back full time and she has even organised a child minder for January 2nd when she was expected back.

Any help gratefully passed on.

Alice's mum

Emmzi

posts are made redundant not people, so if someone else is stepping into the job, the position is not redundant.

however if they have decided they don't want her back then usually the only arguement worth having is about how big the pay off is. She would have a strong case at tribunal that she's being discriminated against. So I'd expect 6 to 9 months pay off, and a compromise agreement.

*Unless* the jobs have all changed significantly. In which case she should be allowed to apply for them, and if unsuccessful, get the standard company payout.

I am however not an employment lawyer.

ACAS is a good place to start for advice.

alice's_mum

Hi emmzie thanks for that but no -one has mentioned redundant, just that she won't have a job to go back to, they have told her that they are keeping on the chap they took on as her 6 months maternity cover so the job isn't going away and it's not be re-structured any different so that she can apply. they just don't want her back.

poppy_f1

alice's_mum wrote: »

Hi emmzie thanks for that but no -one has mentioned redundant, just that she won't have a job to go back to, they have told her that they are keeping on the chap they took on as her 6 months maternity cover so the job isn't going away and it's not be re-structured any different so that she can apply. they just don't want her back.

tell her to call acas as it seems what they are doing to her isnt allowed

SomeBozo

Posts are made redundant. Not people.

It is possible that they had a re-structure when your sister is off and her job is no longer there. Life carries on at work when people are off on holiday/sick/maternity.

If however someone is in her job (with the same job title, salary, responsiblities etc) then this needs to be checked out with HR and a complaint made.

Bozo

alice's_mum

It is possible that they had a re-structure when your sister is off and her job is no longer there. Life carries on at work when people are off on holiday/sick/maternity.

No they haven't restructured they've just decided they want to get rid of her and keep the man they employed to cover her maternity leave. He will now have her job title and run her department nothing has changed except she went off to have a baby. Before she went off she had an appraisal which put her in line for a substantial payrise as she was meeting all they asked of her and this was to come in on 1st January, she sensibly when she left for maternity leave took copies of all her Personal file, reports etc and there is nothing in this that shows she should be gotten rid of..... if she hadn't gone on maternity leave she wouldn't be in this position, surely this is discrimination of some sort.

SomeBozo

Hi alices mum

Before she went off she had an appraisal which put her in line for a substantial payrise as she was meeting all they asked of her

contradicts :

they want to get rid of her and keep the man they employed to cover her maternity leave

If she was that good why would they want to replace her with someone else and keep them?!

Are you being told the full story here?

If the situation is as you say, your sister needs to exhaust the companies complaint policy and then take it to a Employment Appeals Tribunal.

I do suspect you are not getting the full story though.

Bozo

cazziebo

I think I'm with Bozo ...

there is more to this, and what we don't have is the employer's side of the story.

However, if there are any witnesses to the statement "It's only since you've been off that we realized we needed a change of management" then there is a rock solid case of sex discrimination. Had the employee not been off on maternity leave, this phrase suggests the restructure would not have come about.

I usually advise people to contact ACAS, who are great, but if she has legal cover as part of house insurance then I'd suggest she looks at going to a specialist employment lawyer (some policies provide the lawyer, some let you appoint your own).

alice's_mum

Right I am really sorry that you feel I am not "giving you the whole story" but that is the whole story this is a privately owned and run company and this is what they do.. You have the whole story and my sister has told me the full story, in fact we have been expecting them to do this from the minute she found out that she was pregnant as they do not like women in high positions, example the lady before my sister left and did them for sexual discrimination and won, my sister got the job as the previous chair of division knew she was the best person for the job.

Exactly as you say somebozo the two statments contradict each other but they are exactly true, she has the appraisal paperwork to prove it and the fact that they took on this chap (who wasn't the best of the maternity cover candidates but all the others where women) but he plays golf and likes football all the things that make you a great executive on the board, neither of which my sister has any interest in.

I don't think I'm gonna get any constructive help off here tonight ... so thanks for whats come in and we'll take this to a solicitors in the morning.

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

alice's_mum wrote: »

Right I am really sorry that you feel I am not "giving you the whole story" but that is the whole story this is a privately owned and run company and this is what they do.. You have the whole story and my sister has told me the full story, in fact we have been expecting them to do this from the minute she found out that she was pregnant as they do not like women in high positions, example the lady before my sister left and did them for sexual discrimination and won, my sister got the job as the previous chair of division knew she was the best person for the job.

Exactly as you say somebozo the two statments contradict each other but they are exactly true, she has the appraisal paperwork to prove it and the fact that they took on this chap (who wasn't the best of the maternity cover candidates but all the others where women) but he plays golf and likes football all the things that make you a great executive on the board, neither of which my sister has any interest in.

I don't think I'm gonna get any constructive help off here tonight ... so thanks for whats come in and we'll take this to a solicitors in the morning.

Wow feel the bitterness

If they didnt like woman your sister would have never got the job

Likewise if your sister is so good at her job they wouldnt be getting rid of her for someone else and knowing how to be a good executive is part of a senior job

Jo_R_2

alice's_mum wrote: »

Right I am really sorry that you feel I am not "giving you the whole story" but that is the whole story this is a privately owned and run company and this is what they do.. You have the whole story and my sister has told me the full story, in fact we have been expecting them to do this from the minute she found out that she was pregnant as they do not like women in high positions, example the lady before my sister left and did them for sexual discrimination and won, my sister got the job as the previous chair of division knew she was the best person for the job.

Exactly as you say somebozo the two statments contradict each other but they are exactly true, she has the appraisal paperwork to prove it and the fact that they took on this chap (who wasn't the best of the maternity cover candidates but all the others where women) but he plays golf and likes football all the things that make you a great executive on the board, neither of which my sister has any interest in.

I don't think I'm gonna get any constructive help off here tonight ... so thanks for whats come in and we'll take this to a solicitors in the morning.

alice's mum, I think you've misunderstood what's been said... My understanding is that what somebozo and cazziebo were saying is that your sister is not been given the whole story, not you hiding details from us!

I hope it gets sorted out for your sister.