Think my employers are giving my job to someone else to get rid of me.

Sambucus_Nigra

honeypop wrote: »

Edit - I think what is happening here are two different things:
1 - she wants my job and is trying to dissuade me from returning.
2 - my employers have seperately decided they don't want me back, going by what she was asking me for.

I don't doubt it!

However, this phone call could be the one thing that makes the difference between you getting 'made redundant' and being able to take them to a tribunal and winning or at least landing a sum to settle out of court. So - out of the outcomes, if you don't get to return to your job; and you do have to take action, you need to be able to prove that they were not only always planning to make you 'redundant' but that the person who took your job proved it by the things asked in this phone call.

So, even if it never results in anything [ie you go back to work and all is well] please write down everything that you can remember about the phone call; with no assumptions 'she said/ I replied' that sort of thing. And if you have any more....do the same so that you can use it if you need it. I suspect HR would flip their lid if they found out that the conversation happened...

I suspect you've already done this though...don't rely on this thread for evidence, it might disappear!

SarEl

honeypop wrote: »

I can see what you are all saying, not to listen to what she was saying as of course she would be orchestrating the whole thing. But she wasn't telling me things outright, apart from that she had taken on extra work and that some was being outsourced. It was reading between the lines of other things, that led to me being more worried - as her just wanting me not to return so she could have my job was expected, I am not worried about that in itself.

She actually called me to ask me how to find certain information and who to contact for some things etc that only I would know, so she could not ask anyone else. I don't have a problem with her contacting me, I'd rather her do that and me be able to tell her the right way to do something, than her guess and get it all wrong and then I'd have to sort problems out when I returned. I then asked how things were going and she updated me on the changes to the role.

Now, some of the things she was asking, she might not have known what it was all going to lead to, just that I know when someone is on their way out, the head office asks for certain things to be done, information gathered etc, and she was calling to ask where she find some of this and how to do some things. I know from having to do it before what it all means, but she probably doesn't and is just following orders for this particular task.

As for saying I don't think I was meant to know, I don't mean she 'accidently' dropped it into the conversation, I mean that I don't think the management thought she would call me to ask how to do these things, as they would know that I would be able to work out what was going on from what she was being asked to do - hope that bit makes sense!

Edit - I think what is happening here are two different things:
1 - she wants my job and is trying to dissuade me from returning.
2 - my employers have seperately decided they don't want me back, going by what she was asking me for.

But as I said before - you probably aren't being paranoid at all, but this isn't evidence of anything. If every single guess you have made is true, then they are still guesses. If you were to contact your manager and say all this - then you would be sounding paranoid, wouldn't you?

At the moment, you have the law, for what it is worth, on your side. It isn't impossible for them to make you redundant now but it would be very hard. It isn't impossible for them to make you redundant when you return - but nothing you can do now will actually change that prospect.

And if, just if, you are wrong and that isn't what is going on, then raising it with your manager may not just make you appear paranoid - it may put the idea in their heads!

I know that this isn't "ideal" advice. Ideal advice would say that they can't do it or else... Ideal advice would be a way of fixing it. But right now you haven't got anything to go on other than your gut instinct, and that isn't enough. So yes, keep a weather eye on things and keep records of any converstaions you have that actually give you evidence - but otherwise, hard as it may be, try not to worry about what you can't do anything about. As I said before, you won't get this time back with your baby, and worrying won't help you at all.

KiKi

Agree with SarEl and SN. Do nothing. You are legally entitled to return to work as your position is still there, and if not, then they have to prove otherwise. Don't start the conversation on anything else.

Keep a record of everything, though, just in case. But don't start a discussion on it or it might become an issue. Let *them* make the mistakes and then pay the consequences, not start off something which might not go in your favour!

KiKi

honeypop

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

I suspect HR would flip their lid if they found out that the conversation happened

There is no HR dept, our 'head office' in is the US and they mainly deal with everything from there, in way which suits their law and not ours most of the time. It is me that deals with basic things such as holidays etc but all employment issues are deal with through them. And it will them who are instigating this, if I am correct in my guesses.

Thanks everyone. As I said in my original post, I don't want to contact my manager over this, so don't worry I won't be mentioning it to him and therefore letting him know I know, putting the idea in his head, or making him think I'm some kind of wierdo etc!

cakey

Hi, i am currently in the same position. My boss has given my role to another girl, whom i know he wants her to continue doing it instead of me. One thing you have to be aware of, if you go back before 6 months (ordinary maternity leave) then you are fully entitled to your same role back. if you come back after the 6 months, this is additional leave and they only have to offer you an equivalent role, same money, same level etc... if they went for redundancy with you, could you prove your role still exists? hope you sort it out

SarEl

honeypop wrote: »

There is no HR dept, our 'head office' in is the US and they mainly deal with everything from there, in way which suits their law and not ours most of the time. It is me that deals with basic things such as holidays etc but all employment issues are deal with through them. And it will them who are instigating this, if I am correct in my guesses.

Thanks everyone. As I said in my original post, I don't want to contact my manager over this, so don't worry I won't be mentioning it to him and therefore letting him know I know, putting the idea in his head, or making him think I'm some kind of wierdo etc!

In which case, even better reason to let them take the lead. US companies are arrogant. They forget that it does not matter what US law says - in the UK they abide by ours! Or pay for the consequences of not doing so. It's cold comfort and won't stop you worrying, but US companies are often one of the easiest targets - they actually really do think the rest of the world is their backyard, and are often astonished to find that Tribunals have a better sense of geography than they do :rotfl:

honeypop

Thanks, sorry to hear you are going through this!

I wouldn't be offered an equivalent role because this is the only role in the company doing this sort of work, everything else is technical based work so I couldn't do that. I would think I could prove the role still existed, as if it went altogether then a lot of stuff would be left undone - they need someone to do the majorty of this work, they couldn't even share it out amongst the rest of the staff, no-one would be able to do it.

The lady who did the job before me and was made redundant knew there was someone new doing exactly the same work she did, just with a slightly amended job title, but never followed it up - strange! I could understand it if she got a hefty compromise agreement but she didn't, just statutory redundancy pay.

honeypop

SarEl wrote: »

US companies are often one of the easiest targets - they actually really do think the rest of the world is their backyard, and are often astonished to find that Tribunals have a better sense of geography than they do

So true, I've lost count of the amount of times I've had to tell them we can't do things the way they wanted me to because the laws are different over here, they then just go ahead with their original plan anyway and 'buy their way out' when it goes to tribunal.

SarEl

honeypop wrote: »

So true, I've lost count of the amount of times I've had to tell them we can't do things the way they wanted me to because the laws are different over here, they then just go ahead with their original plan anyway and 'buy their way out' when it goes to tribunal.

Well there you are - some good news. Their culture is to buy themselves out of it. If you are going to work for a lousy company, at least choose one that has a cheque book

ceridwen

...and actually, in your position, if this would be "job stealer" rings again for any reason I would be making it VERY VERY plain indeed that it is MY job and I will be resuming it at the end of maternity leave.

In fairness to her - it is very often the case it would appear that a lot of women who go on "maternity leave" never really meant to go back in the first place (ie judging by how rarely they do resume their normal work role later on......) - therefore if you arent one of them and really DID mean it as just "maternity leave" (ie rather than an excuse to continue being paid after you had - in actual fact - left the job) then make it plain "I know a lot of women do this - but I'm not one of them. I really DO intend to come back and I'm not just pulling a flanker to get "maternity pay" for a while after I have left."

Playing devils advocate here - I know I've certainly had a few "headaches" over the years wondering whether a job that I wanted that was advertised as "covering maternity leave" really WAS just "covering maternity leave" or the woman was "pulling a fast one" and never meant to come back in the first place - ie it would be worth my while to take the job and assume it was now mine permanently iyswim. Its so difficult for would-be job holders to tell which "previous occupants" mean it and which dont iyswim...