Can you get rid of a pregnant lady?

tinkerbell84

she shouldn't have more rights just because she's pregnant though!

tsstss7

The point is that she doesn't have less rights because she is pregnant - and the pregnancy is the only reason the employer wishes to terminate her employment.

Savvy_Sue

I think Your Friend (YF) needs to get proper advice on this, ie not just from an internet forum.

It's true that YF won't have to pay SMP, because the New Employee (NE) won't have been there long enough. The NE can claim MA if they've paid enough NI in the relevant years, but that's their problem, not YF's. I don't think the NE would have an automatic right of return, because it was a short term contract which presumably finishes while the NE wants to be on maternity leave!

And YF may be able to dismiss the NE, because they were employed on a temporary contract which they are now unable to complete.

BUT as you can see from the differing opinions given here, it's all a bit of a minefield, and YF has to be careful not to step on one.

Useful sources of advice: ACAS - although they are sometimes not that helpful to employers, so it may be worth asking the question in general terms: if someone is employed on a temporary contract and then becomes pregnant so that they won't be able to work to the end of the contract, on what grounds could they be dismissed? Businesslink are recommended by BERR.

It would be worth YF checking whether she has any free legal advice available through her insurance, or any trade bodies she belongs to. Or if any of her staff belong to a trade union, they might be willing to advise. But she needs advice from a specialist employment lawyer, IMO.

tinkerbell84

Agreed.

Just pointing out (to others) that being pregnant does not grant you immunity to losing your job

timnicebutdim_2

tinkerbell84 wrote: »

she shouldn't have more rights just because she's pregnant though!

Its not so much about having 'more rights' it's about not being discriminated against and having less rights than other people.

ohreally

Mac2308 wrote: »

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

Length of service is irrelevant in the case where dismissal is automatically unfair.

Unfair dismissal: on the grounds of pregnancy or maternity
A woman may make a complaint of automatic unfair dismissal, regardless of her length of service, in any of the following circumstances:
· the dismissal is for a reason associated with her pregnancy;

Source..http://www.netlawman.co.uk/info/pregnancy-maternity.php

and ERA sec 99...http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960018_en_11

Savvy_Sue

That's why I think YF needs proper legal advice, and in a case like this it would be money well spent if she had to PAY for it!

You'd hope it would be as simple as saying "I employed you to work from September to June" (for example) "but as you wish to stop work in December I am terminating your contract with a week's notice."

But if that would be automatically unfair, that would be a really dumb thing to do.

v0id

If she didn't disclose she was pregnant at her interview, wouldn't this technically be grounds for instant dismissal as the position was for maternity cover?

tsstss7

no - pregnancy doesn't have to be disclosed until you are 25 weeks pregnant.

Savvy_Sue

And, being fair, even if she thought she might have been pregnant, or knew she was, she might be one of those people who doesn't tell anyone too soon in case she has a miscarriage. Especially if she'd been trying for a while.

tsstss7 wrote: »

The point is that she doesn't have less rights because she is pregnant - and the pregnancy is the only reason the employer wishes to terminate her employment.

But looked at another way, the only reason the employer wishes to terminate the NE's employment is that the NE does not wish to work until the end of the contract! I don't know if the reason given for that matters, or not ...

You see, it seems to me from a common sense point of view that the NE saying to the employer "I know you employed me to work from September to June, but actually I don't want to work beyond December" breaks the contract. But it might depend what the contract says, and common sense doesn't always come into it where the law is concerned.

That's why I think proper legal advice would be worthwhile. No disrespect to anyone else posting who has proper legal training in this area, but no-one's advice here can be relied on in the legal sense. And the OP's friend can't afford to get it wrong ...

From a very practical and pragmatic point of view, do none of the existing employees want to take on more responsibilities? Is there any way of managing with just 3 people? Could things be 'fiddled' to make it possible? Maybe a part-timer?