Can you get rid of a pregnant lady?

Mac2308

If your friend only employed this perosn in August this year then she should go into work on Monday morning and sack her on the spot. No reason needs to be given. This may sound harsh to some people but wake up and smell the coffee!! If they have only worked for them for 6 weeks then they have NO rights. Get rid and bring someone better suited to the job in.

YorkshireBoy

tinkerbell84 wrote: »

Last in first out would be fair reasoning, despite her pregnancy

Having just been given 30 days notice of redundancy, I took advice (from an employment law solicitor and a practising HR manager friend of mine) and LIFO can be found to contravene Age Discrimination Law. Employers must adopt a 'fair and objective' criteria, and LIFO is neither fair nor objective.

Can't win can you!

ohreally

Be aware that to dismiss an employee because she is pregnant is automatically unfair under the provision of the employment rights act s99, regardless of her length of service.

tsstss7

this web site about stat maternity rights might help

http://www.workingfamilies.org.uk/asp/employer_zone/e_fs_maternityleave.asp

it seems your friends employee is entitled to ordinary maternity leave of 26 weeks (approx 6 mths) and then must return to work or leave...so that effectively means your friend will need cover for this time unless the employee quits her job. However as she is going on maternity from the earliest possible date I would imagine she has no intention of returning to the job (as she woulds have to return to work when her child was 15 weeks old - ie just before 4 mths).

tinkerbell84

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

Having just been given 30 days notice of redundancy, I took advice (from an employment law solicitor and a practising HR manager friend of mine) and LIFO can be found to contravene Age Discrimination Law. Employers must adopt a 'fair and objective' criteria, and LIFO is neither fair nor objective.

Can't win can you!

How bizarre!

I found this on a quick search:

Prior to 1st October 2006, indeed for just about all the time that unfair dismissal has been a feature of employment law, employees have frequently been selected for redundancy on the basis of Last In First Out, or LIFO. It is an easily understood method. It is, admittedly, arbitrary; but it fits in with the British psyche. We all understand how a queue works and the fact that if you are the last one to join it you might not get onto the next bus.

Mark Shortell, of HR Advantage, believed, though, that LIFO was potentially discriminatory under the Age Regulations. Simply put, the older you are the more likely you are to have longer service. Selecting people who have less service is more likely to discriminate against younger people. Discrimination against younger people on grounds of age is just as bad as discriminating against older people.

HR Advantage's clients were therefore advised to select using attendance records. This meant that an employee who had been in post for three months only was retained at the expense of an employee who had been there for fifteen months.

The aggrieved employee made an application to the Tribunal. The employee and HR Advantage were facing what could turn out to be a test case. Would the Tribunal say that the employer was wrong to use attendance only as the criteria? Was HR Advantage's interpretation of the Regulations and the effect of their, perhaps unintended, consequences correct?

In fact the Tribunal held that the selection criterion used was perfectly reasonable and reasonably applied. There was no unfair dismissal. A good result for the employer - perhaps not so good for those of us over the age of fifty!

from http://www.hradvantage.co.uk/news/162.aspx

tomstickland

Sack her and get the other two to do longer shifts? Might be a pragmatic way. Sounds harsh, but you're the one taking all the risks in running a shop and there's a recession starting up.

tsstss7

Misspixie - your friend could employ another temp to cover her maternity period as she will not have to pay any smp - any payments to be made will come from the gov't and as I have heard from a friend who runs a small business they will pay maternity benefits in advance as well provided the business turnover is below a certain amount (she would have to look this up) so although this is a real inconvenience for her it should hopefully not cost her much more than the cost of a job ad and the crossover time when she has the two employees working together.

ohreally

tomstickland wrote: »

Sack her and get the other two to do longer shifts? Might be a pragmatic way. Sounds harsh, but you're the one taking all the risks in running a shop and there's a recession starting up.

In doing so the dismissal would automatically be unfair.

Mac2308

She's Only Been There 6 Weeks. She Has No Rights!!!

tsstss7

sexual decrimination rights kick in from the recruitment process so 6 weeks in doesn't make her have any less rights than any other employee.