Think employer is trying to 'manage' me out - your thoughts please

Mummy_to_Lily

Hi there

This is quite a long winded story so I'll try and condense it as much as I can, but apologies in advance for the length....

Been employed with the company 6.5 yrs, been there from the outset of the company, set up the department & processes etc Had a very good working relationship with my boss, good salary, package and annual bonuses etc. During this time I have been trying to qualify as a Chartered Accountant and have made slow progress - moreso to do with the fact that my job is pressured and we're a small team so my job comes first. The company only paid for the first attempt, I've been funding the rest. (getting qualified was never a stipulated requirement for my job).

During 2006 the company did a management buy-out which I was chosen to be part of and was offered to buy 1% of the company for a silly price - I but their hand off (of course). Apparently I was a key member of the team and this was a way to retain me....all good so far.

Then late 2006 I went on holiday with my partner of 7 years and a few months after this found out I was pregnant (not planned, but hey we were both happy with it and we weren't getting any younger).

I broke the news to my boss in December 2006, needless to say he was less than impressed with the news and from then on his attitude towards me changed. But like always, I continued to give my all to the company to prove I wasn't about to take the micky (like some pregnant woman had in the past). I had no sickness, worked long hours etc etc Then when I was 6 months pregnant, I thought it might be a good idea to have a chat with my boss about my plans to return to work. I said that i would really like to return to work 4 days a week (with 1 possibly being at home). His attitude changed towards me and basically said that I needed to consider the consequences if I couldn;t return full-time, I said that as our circumstances stood at the that time, If I couldn't return part-time I may have to leave. Then he basically said to me why didn't I think about leaving then, he would offer me a lump sum to leave now rather than leaving later on with nothing. Shocked at this, I was extremely upset that he could suddenly become to nasty. I said that i didn't want to leave and this was a job I loved and had given my heart and soul to for years etc etc After this meeting I refused to talk to him about returning to work as it would upset me each time and given that my circumstance might change after I had had the baby, I said I would make a decision nearer the time when I was due to return to work.

He did try to engage with me a number of times after that but I just refused to even enter into a discussion about returning to work, moreso because I was heavily pregnant and didn't want to suffer anymore unnecessary stress and upset at that time.

Things were very frosty between us for the last couple of months of pregnancy but I rose above it, continued to work hard...afterall, he was the one with the problem. I went off and had the baby and forgot about work for a while and tried to enjoy my new baby. Throughout my maternity leave I got the odd phonecall/email for advice (from my cover etc) and I was more than pleased to help - otherwise it would be me that would have to pick up the pieces when I went back to work. I even went back to work (using KIP days) to cover my cover whilst she went on holiday. I covered 3 days a week for 2 weeks.

About 6 weeks before I was due back to work I decided to request 'flexible working' officially. Filled out the form and requested to reduce my week from 37 to 34 hours to be worked over 4 days (possibly 1 day working from home). I suggested to my boss that he would likely get a full time job out of me for less pay, but I was willing to do this given I would be able to have a full day at home with the baby. He refused on the grounds of the effect on the business and that my role was extremely importnant to the business, number 2 to the FD etc etc. Reasons I didn't agree with all of them, but unfortunately I didn't think anyone actually questions the business reasons at a tribunal so I went back to work fulltime.

During my Maternity leave they recruited another Accountant (who was qualified), he was seen to be on the same level as me however being paid alot more, better benefits and a different job role. I didn't question his package as he was qualified, and I wasn't.

Then during the summer they announced he was now going to be a Manager. I was not made aware of this previously, it wasn't advertised, nor was I given the opportunity to apply for the position. I questioned this and told them I wouldn't be happy to report to him as I have always been told I am 'number 2' to the FD and I was pretty much carrying out the role of the manager without the formalisation as I hasn't yet qualified. I asked them where that left me etc and they said I would continue to report to the FD. So I relaxed a little....but I told my boss that I was confused as I didn't now see where I could go in the company now they had made him a manager, it bottle necked me. (I am due to sit my final exam in December and qualify in Feb 09).

I have told my boss that I would like to develop my role further, looking more strategically rather than operational/tactical. Over the past few months, they have been encouraging me to pass my work onto my assistants. I have done this thinking that he had taken on board what I have said about developing my role, but the higher end work has not been coming my way.

I don't know if I'm being paranoid, but we didn't agree any objectives for the yaar when I returned from maternity leave and we haven't really had any of our 'one to one' monthly meeting which used to take place. He has set me some really tough year end deadlines which make me feel as though they are trying to 'manage' me out of the company by maybe making my role redundant or by setting me up for a fall knowing that it will be difficult for me to meet the deadlines he's set (also he knows these deadlines are around my final exam time). I feel totally written off and frozen out.

I am a model employee who has never taken the p*ss, very minimal sick, always there towing the company line and giving 110%. Due to the length of time i my job and his actions and attitude towards me, I lack so much confidence now I can't tell you. And what with the current economy, I am absolutely sh*tting myself that I'm going to be out if a job and we're not going to be able to afford the mortgage etc (we are both good earners and rely on both incomes).

Does anyone think I might have a case for sex disrimination given all the sequence of events etc? Or even of a case of any description at all?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated of how I should be playing this from here.

Thanks

cazziebo

From what you've said I can see that some of it may be "interpreted" as discriminatory, but there isn't much hard evidence - I can see - that would sway a tribunal. (Doesn't mean there isn't any, just it's not obvious to me.)

The company has appointed a fully qualified Accountant and restructured your role round about this change. This is acceptable.

However, from experience, I've seen lots of pregnant and returning mothers discriminated against because decisions are made based on little more than prejudice. "She won't be as committed" "She'll be unreliable.". These prejudices are not borne out with fact. So although I don't see a case for discrimination, I think that discrimination probably exists and may have been the thinking behind the restructure.

I don't see that you are being managed out, more that you are being sidelined. Once you are qualified, then the company will have a harder task of letting you go in favour of the newer person ie the argument no longer exists that the role is for a fully qualified accountant. If the targets set are truly unachievable and out of line with what anyone else is set then that could be construed as unfair and discriminatory.

My heart goes out to you. Terrible situation to be in. I would get on with the job as best as you can. Try not to let them drag you down. Take comfort from the fact that is much harder to get rid of you now, than it would have been a year ago. If the newer hire has less than a year's service then he is probably concerned that there is going to be a second FQ accountant on the payroll and his job might be going...

Incisor

OP: I think you have 2 possible things you can achieve,

• Retain your position
• Gain full qualification

and I think you can only realistically expect to manage 1. It may be that you are being managed out, more likely you are being managed to fail your finals to fit in with the intended power relationships. [I tend to prefer conspiracy over <male chicken> up].

Thin k about it and choose. In your position, I would choose the qualification, and let the job hang - if you think your future is outside the company anyway, then the qualification is more useful than achieving targets set to screw you, because if you meet them, they won't be grateful.

Breeze in, tell them that you would like them to take the targets away until your exam is over. After all they have the new guy to sort it out...

Mummy_to_Lily

Thanks to you both for taking the time to respond.

My thinking is they will get rid of me BEFORE I qualify in February as they know they will be faced with an issue of me wanting to brought up to a similar level to him (pay and role etc).

This is why I think they are encouraging me to get everything done by a certain date in December, just after year end in November. That way, if I get everything done they won't have to be too concerned about closing out year end as I would have already done it.

The other problem I have is that if I leave the company I have to sell back my share holding (at the price I purchased) - they are likely to be worth between 30 and 50 times more than I paid, which could be a huge chunk off my mortgage when they sell up in a few years.

I feel bitter that I could potentially not be a part of that given that I was there working hard from the outset. This other guy has swanned in and just over a year later has been given options not having worked as hard as I did.

Only problem is, our roles ARE (supposedly) completely different. His more strategic, mine is more statutory reporting stuff & tax etc. Clearly then I could (I guess) be made redundant in my own right without even having to consider us against each other.

Why should I walk away with nothing?

I feel I should fight for this and not walk away with nothing.

Incisor

Then how long is it till you own the shareholding outright and can sell it at market value?

cazziebo

Mummy_to_Lily wrote: »

T

I feel I should fight for this and not walk away with nothing.

:T :T :T

I do too! It will be difficult to dismiss you unless you give them very good reason. Similarly it will be difficult to construct a redundancy case for your role, particularly if you are involved in the reporting/operational stuff - businesses need that. Not impossible though, so don't give them any cause.

Why would you have to sell your shares back on leaving, and why at the purchase value rather than current value? I'm curious.

Mummy_to_Lily

I do own the shares outright however there's a condition in the 'articles' - if you're a 'bad leaver' the company have the right to buy back the shares.

The shares currently don't have an 'open market value' as they are not traded. They would only have a value if another party bought the company or we floated on something like AIM. Obviously you can place an internal value on them purely by say (in simple terms) the value of the balance sheet and the number of shares. So being in the thick of the numbers I know myself what the shares are potentially worth.

Hope that makes sense (without being patronising to anyone).

By the way, a 'good leaver' would get to keep the shares - i.e. someone who has naturally retired. I don't know whether a redundancy is classed as a good or bad leaver.

Incisor

Tell us more about the leaving conditions - what is a bad leaver? - are you free to sell to anyone right now [privately rather than publicly traded]?

This puts a different slant on it - you may need legal advice - there appears to be more to it than straightforward sex discrimination against a new mother - this looks to me more like an attempt to take away your share holding - so you might get a good result in terms of sex discrimination, but lose very badly overall if you approach it as sex discrimination.

cazziebo

Okay I understand now. Good and bad leaver are HMRC terms. Good leaver leaves through no action of their own - redundancy, death or retirement. A bad leaver leaves through dismissal or own volition (ie to take another job). I believe as a good leaver you would not pay tax on any gains made. (And at this point, I always say, it doesn't mean someone is a bad person, it's just unfortunate terminology!)

In any cases I've been involved with (I work in business transfers and buy outs) then the shares have been valued on a preset formula. Is there anything at all in your articles that states this? I would have thought that it would be good practice to value the shares annually? (although I realise if there is no intent to trade then this might not be done)

Incisor - the company can't take away the shareholding. It's an employee share scheme. What MtL is saying is that she would only get the purchase value back, not the current value.

Right now, I'm not sure there is a case to answer, but I'd advise the OP to document everything that happens, targets/conversations/meetings she may be excluded from, just in case the situation does escalate. If all this started because of pregnancy, and motherhood, then the obvious route to take would be sex discrimination.

Incisor

cazziebo wrote: »

Okay I understand now. Good and bad leaver are HMRC terms. Good leaver leaves through no action of their own - redundancy, death or retirement. A bad leaver leaves through dismissal or own volition (ie to take another job). I believe as a good leaver you would not pay tax on any gains made. (And at this point, I always say, it doesn't mean someone is a bad person, it's just unfortunate terminology!)

Thanks

In any cases I've been involved with (I work in business transfers and buy outs) then the shares have been valued on a preset formula. Is there anything at all in your articles that states this? I would have thought that it would be good practice to value the shares annually? (although I realise if there is no intent to trade then this might not be done)

Incisor - the company can't take away the shareholding. It's an employee share scheme. What MtL is saying is that she would only get the purchase value back, not the current value.

MtL says that the company have the right to buy back from a bad leaver.

Right now, I'm not sure there is a case to answer, but I'd advise the OP to document everything that happens, targets/conversations/meetings she may be excluded from, just in case the situation does escalate. If all this started because of pregnancy, and motherhood, then the obvious route to take would be sex discrimination.

Agree, document everything. Although sex discrimination may be the obvious route, I'm thinking this is more about the shares than about the employment relationship. In other words, the motivation is transfer of wealth away form MtL and sex discrimination is merely a description of the weaknesses which are being exploited to achieve the transfer of wealth. So, I am suggesting looking deeper to try and comprehend what is going on rather than just looking at how it is being done.

cazziebo

In a share incentive plan then only employees can hold shares - therefore either the company has to buy back, or the shares must be sold to other employees. However, MtL is not disputing the buy back, but the value of the buy back.

Hmm - it's not really transfer of wealth. All of this will be answered in the articles of association (or Trust Deed) which will document the management of shares. MtL's shares are safe, what she is saying (if I'm reading it properly) is that it is likely that the company will be sold at some point in the future. All shareholders at that time would likely receive quite a large pay out. If she was to leave before a buy out then she would not benefit from any pay out.

Right now there is no wealth to transfer. If MtL is correct, then all shareholders own shares that are valued at the purchase price. Right now, she is no better or worse off than anyone else, and nothing can change that - except dismissal or redundancy. Dismissal would impact negatively, redundancy wouldn't.

Therefore the danger is dismissal.

(although I hope she finds something in the articles re share valuation)