Redundancy whilst on mat leave

Bexiwexi

Hi, i hope somebody could help please..

A bit of a back story;
I work for quite a large company (or was a large company) and it has been in the press for some time now about financial difficulties..
I have been on mat leave since June this year and i have not heard from work until 23/9 where i was informed 4 people from my department are to be made redundant and as of 1 November the company will be taken over.

I was then contacted 6/10 and told that my scoring was 'tied' with 4 people. After length of service and attendance was taken into concideration i was then in another tie with a colleague. I explained that any time i have taken off for was taken as unpaid leave for my child at home (who is now 3) she said it didnt matter.

I was invited to come in the following day to answer technical questions regarding the job role.. I had to come in (with my baby) and altho i did state i was at a disadvantage as i have not been actively in the job for around 4-5 months i was told again, it doesnt matter. i had to answer questions about what reports i run etc. That evening i was told there was one question i got wrong therefore at risk of redundancy.. (A FILING QUESTION!)

I was asked to come in for a meeting with HR 11/10 (yesterday) i showed him my print outs from DWP webpage that you are entilted to take upto 13 weeks unpaid leave for a dependant at home and also, whilst on mat leave and facing redundancy i have enhanced rights to be offered something else but he said he wasnt sure and he would have to get back to me..

I got all my resourse from ACAS/DWP and I have submitted a letter to 'challenge' all of the above today detailing all of the above but just wondering if anyone has any advice to offer about any other steps i can take?
And am i within my rights to take this further?

Thanks and sorry its a long one!

Jarndyce

Are you 'at risk' of redundancy or have you been selected? There is a big difference.

Whether you are legally entitled to take leave as opposed to whether you did take leave are two different things. They are entitled to take account the leave you have taken in maknig a selection for redundancy. As you are on mat leave they should give you priorioty for any suitable alternative post that arises, but there may not be one in which case that would be academic.

UNless you have evidence that you have been threated less favourably as a result of your being on maternity leave I cannot see that the employer has done anything wrong here.

What is concerning is that the company is to be taken over on 1 November - in which case why are oldco making redundancies now? The redundancies could be unfair if connected with the transfer - that point would need to be looked at by an employment lawyer in full possession of all the facts and correspondence.

an9i77

Yes they can take into account dependents leave - as both men and women can take this leave I don't see that this would sexually discriminate you so it is a fair criterion. As you are on mat leave, one school of thought is that you should be offered any suitable alternatives ahead of other employees, or at least this was the way it used to be - a recent tribunal ruling has challenged this, as it could be deemed to be sexually discriminative against men. So I don't know if this stands anymore. Perhaps someone with more legal knowledge than I can give a view.
What you have to remember in redundancy selection is that if you don't get selected, someone else will, so the company needs a very good reason not to select you if the criteria identify you as being selected. They don't want to be in the situation of not selecting you because it could be discriminatory, only for whoever was selected in your place to then claim it was unfair too. So they need to weigh up the risk either way and see where the risk is greater.

Bexiwexi

Many thanks for your replies..

I am 'at risk' of redundancy however when i asked how i become out of risk, i was told i cant. i responsed with, So i am only at risk because you are obliged to put me at risk before making me redundant.. the reply, yes.

I dont believe taking time off for a dependant is sexually discriminating however DWP webpage states it classed as unfair for a reason for dismissal and this is why i was put in the situation.

My other point is that i was not treated equally to my colleague. She was performing the job daily before answering her questions where as i was at home having a baby. I then was given less than 24 hours notice to come in to answer.

The other point being i was not contacted or informed of the potential risk of redunancies in writings until after i was told i was at risk. Im sure i am to be told in writing first?

My sister in law has just qualified from a law degree so i may ask her for some guidence or atleast borrow some books lol

Thanks again for your replies.

getmore4less

We have been told that "at risk" does not exist as a legal state so there is no need for anything written about being "at risk"

There is a potential requirement to go through a consultaion and selection proceess that could lead to notice of termination.

I think I would focus on the selection process, the transfer and any protection you have from being on maternity.

Is the company is being taken over completely rather than a TUPE? this could make a difference.

Jarndyce

Bexiwexi wrote: »

Many thanks for your replies..

I am 'at risk' of redundancy however when i asked how i become out of risk, i was told i cant. i responsed with, So i am only at risk because you are obliged to put me at risk before making me redundant.. the reply, yes.

I dont believe taking time off for a dependant is sexually discriminating however DWP webpage states it classed as unfair for a reason for dismissal and this is why i was put in the situation.

It isn't. It would be unfair if a reason for dismissal was having exercised the right to time off, yes, but that is different to using time off - for any reason - as one of the selection criteria in a redundancy selection, which is quite fair.

My other point is that i was not treated equally to my colleague. She was performing the job daily before answering her questions where as i was at home having a baby. I then was given less than 24 hours notice to come in to answer.

Er, what else could they have done? They would have been guilty of discrimination if they hadn't asked you in for interview.

The other point being i was not contacted or informed of the potential risk of redunancies in writings until after i was told i was at risk. Im sure i am to be told in writing first?

No - there is no requirement to inform in writing before they inform verbally.

My sister in law has just qualified from a law degree so i may ask her for some guidence or atleast borrow some books lol

Well good luck with that, but I suggest you actually take advice from a qualified employment lawyer.

Thanks again for your replies.

Can you explain about the takeover?

SarEl

Ermm - has everyone forgotten regulation 10? An employer is legally required to allow a woman on maternity leave the right to return to her own job or to one that is a suitable alternative employment if that is not available. It is therefore impossible for the OP to have "scored a tie" since it would appear that her own job still exists, and she has a right to return to it. If this is a "re-structured job" however, and not the OP's original post, then this falls under the "suitable alternative vacancy" and she should have automatically been offered the post. So the leave is a red herring - the OP should never have been scored in the first place.

glasgowdan

I don't see how someone on maternity leave gets special treatment... they should be scored the same as anyone else. At risk means your benefit to the company is questionable.

Think bigger picture - is the job worth it or can you do better? It could be less painful if you just go for a good redundancy package and find something better!

SarEl

glasgowdan wrote: »

I don't see how someone on maternity leave gets special treatment... they should be scored the same as anyone else. At risk means your benefit to the company is questionable.
!

You may not see it - but since the law requires it then what you see isn't at all relevant.

glasgowdan

SarEl I have confirmed this with my other half (she is an HR manager) and she says that what you say only applies in a normal situation - i.e. completely independant of a redundancy situation. If there are redundancies then her job CAN be at risk whether on maternity or not, so I am completely correct.

Best not give people the wrong idea on forums like this as it could cause them problems!

getmore4less

glasgowdan wrote: »

SarEl I have confirmed this with my other half (she is an HR manager) and she says that what you say only applies in a normal situation - i.e. completely independant of a redundancy situation. If there are redundancies then her job CAN be at risk whether on maternity or not, so I am completely correct.

Best not give people the wrong idea on forums like this as it could cause them problems!

well I know who I would believe more, so did a bit of searching, seems others agree with SarEl

http://eortrial.co.uk/default.aspx?id=1132718

perhaps you need to educate your OH, or get her to read regulation 10

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/3312/regulation/10/made

Since it specificaly applies where there is redundacy

Redundancy during maternity leave

10.—(1) This regulation applies where, during an employee’s ordinary or additional maternity leave period, it is not practicable by reason of redundancy for her employer to continue to employ her under her existing contract of employment.
(2) Where there is a suitable available vacancy, the employee is entitled to be offered (before the end of her employment under her existing contract) alternative employment with her employer or his successor, or an associated employer, under a new contract of employment which complies with paragraph (3) (and takes effect immediately on the ending of her employment under the previous contract).
(3) The new contract of employment must be such that—
(a)the work to be done under it is of a kind which is both suitable in relation to the employee and appropriate for her to do in the circumstances, and
(b)its provisions as to the capacity and place in which she is to be employed, and as to the other terms and conditions of her employment, are not substantially less favourable to her than if she had continued to be employed under the previous contract.