Job offer received, contract signed now offer removed.

LL30

Great news, I hope you manage to get everything cleared up tomorrow and it was all a bit of a muddle and not an example of how they usually operate (sorry, I'm cynical of employers, full stop) Good luck x

KiKi

Great news, so so pleased for you!

You wanna do any of us a favour? Send us each a tenner out of your wife's first pay packet and we'll have a drink on her behalf (seeing as she can't, being pregnant and all... )

lizzywig

I'm so pleased for you, what a potentially huge relief. I had a very stressful time myself in my early pregnancy but with landlords and buying a house which wasn't working out but then did. Why does life have to be so hard sometimes.

I know that this experience has probably tainted the company for your wife but you do need the money and jobs are very hard to find at the moment. If I were her I would go for it and work my backside off.

crispy_chris

If they give the OP's wife a job, could they not fire her in a month or so citing whatever reason they wanted due to that whole 'under 12 month = no job protection' rule, or would that be opening an equal sized can of worms for them?

Uncertain

crispy_chris wrote: »

If they give the OP's wife a job, could they not fire her in a month or so citing whatever reason they wanted due to that whole 'under 12 month = no job protection' rule, or would that be opening an equal sized can of worms for them?

They could, that is why I suggested getting some hard evidence of the pregnancy issue just in case.

Obviously that risk applies with just about any job change. The only way round it is by contractual terms guaranteeing minimum periods of employment or golden handshakes etc. Normally that is only achievable if you are head hunted rather than having simply applied for an advertised job.

an9i77

They would be taking serious risks to fire her when pregnant, as if challenged the onus would be on them to prove that it was not due to the pregnancy I think. So they'd have to put some serious effort into framing her for incompetence or whatever - not impossible but risky. They are already on the back foot now so I think it unlikely they'd go down this route.

Jarndyce

an9i77 wrote: »

They would be taking serious risks to fire her when pregnant, as if challenged the onus would be on them to prove that it was not due to the pregnancy I think. So they'd have to put some serious effort into framing her for incompetence or whatever - not impossible but risky. They are already on the back foot now so I think it unlikely they'd go down this route.

Nope - the burden of proof is on the employee in that situation.

zzzLazyDaisy

Jarndyce wrote: »

Nope - the burden of proof is on the employee in that situation.

Sorry but that is not the case.

In a discrimination case it is for the employee to make the allegation and show sufficient evidence that there are reasonable grounds for belief that discrimination has taken place - the burden then passes to the employer to persuade the tribunal that the reason for the employee's dismissal was not related to the pregnancy.

If you think about it, this is the right way. An employee cannot prove what has or has not happened behind closed doors when the decision to dismiss her was taken - if that was the burden of proof, few employees would ever succeed. But in a genuinely fair dismissal, an employer will be able to explain to the tribunal the genuine reasons for dismissing the employee.

here is a transcript of a case on almost exactly the same facts as OP's situation where the employer failed to discharge their burden of proof, so the employee won her discrimination case

http://www.eortrial.co.uk/default.aspx?id=1095028

Jarndyce

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Sorry but that is not the case.

In a discrimination case it is for the employee to make the allegation and show sufficient evidence that there are reasonable grounds for belief that discrimination has taken place - the burden then passes to the employer to persuade the tribunal that the reason for the employee's dismissal was not related to the pregnancy.

If you think about it, this is the right way. An employee cannot prove what has or has not happened behind closed doors when the decision to dismiss her was taken - if that was the burden of proof, few employees would ever succeed. But in a genuinely fair dismissal, an employer will be able to explain to the tribunal the genuine reasons for dismissing the employee.

here is a transcript of a case on almost exactly the same facts as OP's situation where the employer failed to discharge their burden of proof, so the employee won her discrimination case

http://www.eortrial.co.uk/default.aspx?id=1095028

I'm aware of the law thank you - it may be a question of semantics but the onus is firmly on the employee first to establish facts from which it may be assumed that discrimination has taken place. Every case will be different.

SHIPSHAPE

sarel wrote: »

yes it is a valid h&s question.

no it isn't, the point in question is they were prospective employers and therefore had no right in asking about pregnancy at that stage and is in breach of the equality act.

even an employed woman need not legally reveal their pregnancy until the end of the 15th week before the baby is due.



and they can deny knowing she was pregnant.

they did know, a questionaire was completed by the op's partner, and they also verbally told the employer.

......
.....