I want to be made redundant

kateab

If they refuse your flexible working request outright without offering you something flexible, then that could be classed as indirect sexual discrimination because as a woman, you are more likely to be the main carer of your child. I would be tempted to apply for flexible working and see what that gets you. If they refuse this, then get yourself some legal advice based on your situation.

Agree that making pregnant women or people on ML redundant is very difficult and has to be done very carefully. (I do still know people it has happened to tho). In that situation, if they make your job redundant, they are obliged to give you first refusal on ANY vacancy in the company and you have to be offered the role without having to attend interview or anything. (Obviously, don't have to take that but it is supposed to be done).

kateab

bendix

kateab wrote: »

If they refuse your flexible working request outright without offering you something flexible, then that could be classed as indirect sexual discrimination because as a woman, you are more likely to be the main carer of your child. I would be tempted to apply for flexible working and see what that gets you. If they refuse this, then get yourself some legal advice based on your situation.

Agree that making pregnant women or people on ML redundant is very difficult and has to be done very carefully. (I do still know people it has happened to tho). In that situation, if they make your job redundant, they are obliged to give you first refusal on ANY vacancy in the company and you have to be offered the role without having to attend interview or anything. (Obviously, don't have to take that but it is supposed to be done).

kateab

I'm sorry, but none of this is true in law. An organisation is under no obligation to accept requests for flexible working arrangements, irrespective of the person's sex, age or private circumstances. However, in refusing it, they do have to explain why - from a business case - it is being turned down. But there are a million reasons that can be used.

As for your comment that a woman on maternity leave who has been made redundant being given first refusal on ANY vacancy in the organisation, that is palpable nonsense and has no basis in legal fact or precedent.

In your scenario, a janitor could end up as CEO, if the CEO role is the next position to become vacant. That is the danger with this forum - illinformed comment is presented as fact.

We have recently been through a redundancy round, whereby 84 jobs were cut. Two of those roles were held on women currently on maternity leave. One has secured another role in the firm (but had to go through a competitive interview process to secure it to prove she was up to it; the other gladly took voluntary redundancy because she had no intention of returning to work anyway.)



PS . I work for a very large corporate law firm. The entire weight of our employment and labour law division was used to ensure not only that we complied with the law, but also managed the process in a way which was very beneficial to those concerned. In the end, none of the 84 redundancies were compulsory, and the firm paid far about minimum legal rates as payouts. One guy, who only joined the firm 4 months ago, received a redundancy payment of five months salary. Another who had been with the firm for 9 years, received a payment of close to six figures.

kateab

Actually, no, it is the case that although a company is not obliged to accept a flexible working request in any way, I was advised by a pretty good law firm that a refusal to offer me anything flexible *may* be taken as indirect sexual discrimination and at the time that they were refusing my request outright with no suggested alternatives, I may have had a case to take to tribunal. As it happened, I was eventually offered something flexible and would not have had as clear a case so accepted what I was offered.

As for your comment that a woman on maternity leave who has been made redundant being given first refusal on ANY vacancy in the organisation, that is palpable nonsense and has no basis in legal fact or precedent.

Well, explain me this then:

You can be made redundant while on maternity leave if your position is
genuinely redundant. But it would be unfair dismissal and sex
discrimination to select you for redundancy just because you are pregnant
or on maternity leave.
If you are made redundant while on maternity leave, your employer must
offer you any suitable alternative vacancies, even if they are with another
company in the same group and even if there are better qualified
candidates for the position. You cannot be made to apply for any such
vacancy or be interviewed for it – it should simply be offered to you.

From https://www.rjw.co.uk/our-expertise/employment/maternity (scroll down to maternity rights fact sheet).

I did check my facts before I posted, thank you. I may not work for a very large law firm but I have been in some of these situations and am fairly up on my rights.

Ooh, look - just found it on DirectGov which is pretty authoritative. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Moneyandworkentitlements/WorkAndFamilies/Pregnancyandmaternityrights/DG_175088

If you are made redundant whilst on maternity leave then you have special rights. Even if you do not have the normal two years service, you have the right to be offered any suitable alternative job in the company. This is even if there are other employees that might be more suitable for the job. If you are offered a new job, then you are still entitled to the four-week trial period, which should start when you return from maternity leave.

And yes, I guess the janitor could be offered the CEO's job but I'm sure an employer would arrange it such that that wouldn't happen. And would a "janitor" (cos, like, you know, janitors are all soo stupid, aren't they?! :rolleyes: ) want to take the CEO job - they don't have to take it, just be offered it. My friend was made redundant whilst pregnant in January under very dodgy circumstances but all she was offered was some noddy job so they could say they had done everything possible to redeploy her.

kateab

liney

The fact that 2 of the team are redundunt, there is all the more reason that the only one left is required to work full time and to cover the hours that the needs of the business dictate.

Whilst they have to consider a request, they are perfectly within their right to refuse, and the above circumstance is a good enough reason.

bendix

kateab wrote: »

Actually, no, it is the case that although a company is not obliged to accept a flexible working request in any way, I was advised by a pretty good law firm that a refusal to offer me anything flexible *may* be taken as indirect sexual discrimination and at the time that they were refusing my request outright with no suggested alternatives, I may have had a case to take to tribunal. As it happened, I was eventually offered something flexible and would not have had as clear a case so accepted what I was offered.


Well, explain me this then:



From https://www.rjw.co.uk/our-expertise/employment/maternity (scroll down to maternity rights fact sheet).

I did check my facts before I posted, thank you. I may not work for a very large law firm but I have been in some of these situations and am fairly up on my rights.

Ooh, look - just found it on DirectGov which is pretty authoritative. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Moneyandworkentitlements/WorkAndFamilies/Pregnancyandmaternityrights/DG_175088



And yes, I guess the janitor could be offered the CEO's job but I'm sure an employer would arrange it such that that wouldn't happen. And would a "janitor" (cos, like, you know, janitors are all soo stupid, aren't they?! :rolleyes: ) want to take the CEO job - they don't have to take it, just be offered it. My friend was made redundant whilst pregnant in January under very dodgy circumstances but all she was offered was some noddy job so they could say they had done everything possible to redeploy her.

kateab

You're changed the goalposts a bit, havent you? In your earlier post you said a maternity leave woman has to be offered first refusal on ANY post (your capital letters, not mine).

However, you are now quoting words which say the employer must offer you 'any suitable alternative vacancy'. The key word is suitable. It isnt a word you mentioned before.

And that is why a janitor would not, in fact, be offered the CEO role. Suitable. Geddit?

Umm . . there's a quantam difference between the two. I can only reply to the comments you post at the time, not those you amend in spirit later.

getmore4less

liney wrote: »

The fact that 2 of the team are redundunt, there is all the more reason that the only one left is required to work full time and to cover the hours that the needs of the business dictate.

Whilst they have to consider a request, they are perfectly within their right to refuse, and the above circumstance is a good enough reason.

Remember in the first post.

Before I left, team morale was so low, I was being give an excessive work load as my colleagues were unavailable due to flexible working etc. It was unbelievably stressful

So if this was ever raised as an issue the company can use this to support not having flexble working.

wizard5353

I get the feeling many here don't quite understand employee rights on flexible working. Your best course of action is to read the act thinking as a Business manager looking for loopholes and ways to get out of offering it.

Although the employer does not have to agree to flexible working requests they need to have a good reason not to agree to it and there has to be no alternatives that would allow flexible working otherwise the employer is left open to a case of constructive dismissal. The fact that other staff were on flexible working and then made redundant does support that case.

As for a employer refusing flexible working requests being used for a case of sexual discrimination I think you were misinformed on that point. I face so called "good" solicitors and barristers every week and it's shocking how little some of them know about the law. A male employee is more likely to be able to complain of discrimination for a flexible working request being rejected as the common misconception is that men are the bread winners and have little involvement to the children's upbringing and care.

kateab

bendix wrote: »

You're changed the goalposts a bit, havent you? In your earlier post you said a maternity leave woman has to be offered first refusal on ANY post (your capital letters, not mine).

However, you are now quoting words which say the employer must offer you 'any suitable alternative vacancy'. The key word is suitable. It isnt a word you mentioned before.

And that is why a janitor would not, in fact, be offered the CEO role. Suitable. Geddit?

Umm . . there's a quantam difference between the two. I can only reply to the comments you post at the time, not those you amend in spirit later.

No, I haven't moved the goalposts, mr hotshot lawyer.

If I don't get any of my preferred schools for my child, the local council can offer me any "suitable alternative school". What that means is they won't offer me secondary if I've got a 4 year old and they won't offer me a special school if my child doesn't have special needs but they won't agonise, like whether it was "suitable" for my child like I perhaps would - it's a school, it has places. It could be a !!!!! one, it could be an outstanding school. Pretty much all a council would care about was it was open and accepting children.

I'm sorry my terminology is not totally up to your high standards, but yannoo, I am a layperson. It does state that the person on ML has to be offered the job ahead of "better qualified" people so I'm sure there are only a few circumstances where you can't offer a particular job to such a person because of the lack of their qualifications. This is designed to protect those on maternity leave, such that you do have to have an excellent case to make someone redundant in those circumstances, like a total closure or something. (Even then, if you were closing an office and there was a job going in another office, the person on ML would probably have to be offered that job to cover themselves, even tho it's unlikely unless it is practical for them to travel, to accept that job offer). I'm guessing (only cos I can't read minds, loike) that it's designed to reduce the incidence of people making someone redundant because of their pregnancy and / absence on maternity leave and finding ways around it.

It's clearly not perfect but I can't currently think of a better way to protect these people. I know it used to be common for pregnant women and new mothers to be made redundant (and in fact, I know of someone only a few years back who was made to reapply for her job as a store manager for a large well known retail chain and attend an interview during ML as part of a redundancy process when in fact I don't think she should have been made to do that.

kateab

Spirit_2

In reply to the OP.

You can solicit your managers to make you volunatarily redundant, however it may not succeed.

The real issue is how big a payout would you get? How long would it last you? Then what would you live on?

Answer all of these questions and work out how long you have to work for to 'earn' your way to becoming a stay at home mum and how you would live without your income.

My advice is to stop hankering after a 'pot of gold' and plan your future.

Spirit

the_sexy_witch

wow benix is well fiesty......it's kinda sexy in a wierd sorta way :?