Facing redundancy after returning to work from maternity

billybraggtastic

My OH has been advised that she is being considered for redundancy 4mths after returning from maternity leave.

Is there any legislation which protects individuals from this as it appears to be a situation of "well we coped without you so we don't need you anymore"

To broaden her circumstances - on returning to work she agreed to go part-time (4 days instead of 5) and that this was up for review after 3mths. This review has not taken place. Instead she has been advised that there is a prospect of redundancy. Her role is marketing/business dev and she has no direct staff or comparable peers. The workload was spread around during her maternity and it is likely that this is what the company are looking to do going forward.

Basically, in our opinion, her position has only come under threat following her maternity - had she not gone on maternity there is no reason to believe that her position would come under review.

Is she just a victim of circumstance?

jazzyman01

Problem is that the company can probably show good ETO in the current climate.

If she agreed to go to 4 day week - and it was not reviewed I would be concerned that if her position is redundant then her payment may be adversely affected because of the 1/5th reduction?

Pete111

billybraggtastic wrote: »

My OH has been advised that she is being considered for redundancy 4mths after returning from maternity leave.

Is there any legislation which protects individuals from this as it appears to be a situation of "well we coped without you so we don't need you anymore"

To broaden her circumstances - on returning to work she agreed to go part-time (4 days instead of 5) and that this was up for review after 3mths. This review has not taken place. Instead she has been advised that there is a prospect of redundancy. Her role is marketing/business dev and she has no direct staff or comparable peers. The workload was spread around during her maternity and it is likely that this is what the company are looking to do going forward.

Basically, in our opinion, her position has only come under threat following her maternity - had she not gone on maternity there is no reason to believe that her position would come under review.

Is she just a victim of circumstance?

Assuming as you say, that the company is able to show that making her role (not her BTW - her role) redundant is reasonable in terms of business requirement and that noone else performs this then I think it quite likey it could be positioned as a fair redundancy

You are upset as to why this came about but look at it another way. if your wife had gone on maternity and the company had not made the aforementioned adjustments but had then lost business/clients by not doing so and instead gone under - would that be reasonable?

...Or if they had emailed and phoned her every day whilst she was on maternity expecting her to do her role whilst caring for your newborn - would that be reasonable?

Sad to say but it sounds like your wifes maternity did give the company the opportunity to trial a cheaper and revised system of work...which worked. As such your wifes role is now surplus to requirements.

It sucks but I'm afraid given how she has no direct peers/comparators etc and time are tight I think it would be quite reasonable for the company to consider this as an option. There is quite possibly indirect discrimination in there somewhere but I certainly wouldn't like to go to tribunal with it....

kennyboy66_2

billybraggtastic wrote: »

Is she just a victim of circumstance?

Perhaps - although it would seem unlikely from what you say that the firm have followed the correct procedure.

I would suggest your wife phones ACAS 08457 474747, Citizens Advice Bureau or an employment solicitor.
They will at least help her negotiate the best compromise agreement rather than be fobbed off with statutory redundancy.

Pete111

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Perhaps - although it would seem unlikely from what you say that the firm have followed the correct procedure.

I would suggest your wife phones ACAS 08457 474747, Citizens Advice Bureau or an employment solicitor.
They will at least help her negotiate the best compromise agreement rather than be fobbed off with statutory redundancy.

I agree it is theoretically possible to work the maternity angle to try to get an enhanced package here but from the detail provided there is very little that indicates redundancy procedure has been breached.

P

kennyboy66_2

Amongst other reasons I would start to challenge on this basis.

The work has not disappeared but is being re-allocated during a restructuring.
Arguably there is a pool of people affected (since someone must be doing the work) but there has been no selection criteria or if so it is a sham.

Your partner must by law be offered first refusal to alternate roles during the restructuring.

From experience companies that fail to review flexible working changes don't follow the correct technical procedure during redundancy.
As this could easily be sex discrimination were the penalties are unlimited, companies are loath to go to tribunal unless they have a watertight case.

Pete111

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Amongst other reasons I would start to challenge on this basis.

The work has not disappeared but is being re-allocated during a restructuring.
Arguably there is a pool of people affected (since someone must be doing the work) but there has been no selection criteria or if so it is a sham.

Your partner must by law be offered first refusal to alternate roles during the restructuring.

From experience companies that fail to review flexible working changes don't follow the correct technical procedure during redundancy.
As this could easily be sex discrimination were the penalties are unlimited, companies are loath to go to tribunal unless they have a watertight case.

The OP has stated that the work has been farmed out a number of directions and that noone sits at his OH's level or does a remotely similar role overall.

I don't think it would be that hard to justify this. Of course, theoretically speaking you could argue that because say 3-4 people are doing parts of the role then the OPs wife may be able to do 20% of someone elses etc and that someone else could do 15% of ...ad finitum.The difference is that this way round has been proven to be doable and could save the company money in hard times.

As such I don't see this as being slam dunk sex discrimination (though that should not mean you can't use this angle to get a better deal as Kenny Boy correctly says OP) I think it's a harsh but pragmatic ETO.

billybraggtastic

Firstly, thanks for the replies - they have cleared up my original query re any legislative protection.

As it stands my OH has had a letter from her employer stating why her post was under consideration and a request to attend a meeting to discuss the matter.

That meeting has now taken place but rather than a discussion it was effectively an opportunity for my OH to state her claim to be retained - she pointed out areas of her role which were neglected during her maternity (work that had been spread out to others) and highlighted what she could continue to offer. Ultimately she offered to review her flexible working arrangement by further reducing her hours and thus reducing salary commitment of employer.

The other aspect to be aired was the amount of redundancy pay she was to be offered if redundancy proceeded - which in fairness is more than double statutory.

Her employer is now considering the content of the meeting and she will be informed of their intention at a further meeting later this week.

We'll see what the next stage brings

bbt