my friend

leasky30

equality and human rights commission i think she has contacted as she is getting sent out a pack from them

at the time she took the job she was contracted to work 3 till 7 that's all she got told, there was no mention of working till 8 or at the weekend, they even had a rotter which was from sep to Dec stating this as well, she started in the second week in September, then 2 weeks after her taking the job she told them she was pregnant, she even has been off her work as well because of some complications with the pregnancy as well, but she has been there on time, and worked the hours she was contracted to do, the hassle about her working longer and at the weekends only started after she told them she was preganat, when she was at her meeting she was told that she would be fired for not meeting business requirements, but in the letter she received it said fired for not being flexible to her hours, even though she pregnant, are they not ment to be flexible with her

Emmzi

no, they are not meant to be flexible. they are meant to do a risk assessment and give her time off for pregnancy related medical appointments and, er, that's it.

You are not helping by encouraging her to go through a stressful process that she has no hope of "winning." My advice would be help her to move on mentally.

She's been a bit naive and will know better next time.

Sambucus_Nigra

Presumably, if she hadn't refused to work then she would not have been dismissed for it.

That's all they have to say on the topic.

[Rotter = Rota. I did wonder what a rotter had to do with it...]

Emmzi

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Presumably, if she hadn't refused to work then she would not have been dismissed for it.

[Rotter = Rota. I did wonder what a rotter had to do with it...]

Ohhh! I thought we were complaining 3 - 7 was a "rotter" of a shift! When it seems totally normal to me!

KiKi

leasky30 wrote: »

i think she spoke to equality and human rights folk, as they said as she pregnant she is in some protective bubble where they cant sack for no reason, she was sacked for not being able to commit to working a hour longer Monday to friday, even though she has a temporay contract which she has never signed, which goes week to week, they have been trying to get her work weekend, which she would have been fine with if they asked her on a Monday, but not on Thursday or Friday as when she gets home she is knackered, she has a 2 year old all ready and the little one on the way, she asked for a risk assessment to be done, but it never happened, she never got extra breaks, and they way her work has been with her since she told them she was pregnant has stressed her out more,

Under a year's service, you can be sacked for whatever reason your employer likes - for having pink hair, or for being a bit mean, or for not having a nose ring. You can be sacked for having a fascination with frogs. The only thing they can't dismiss her for is being pregnant, disabled, or any other legal discriminatory factor.

She is being given bad advice. There is no 'protective bubble' for her. Yes, they should do a risk assessment, but the fact that she's knackered and already has a child is nothing to do with the employer. Her personal circumstances are none of the employer's business. All they care about is her meeting business needs. She isn't.

The fact that she has never signed a contract is also irrelevant. Not only that, but you've said it's temporary. She is putting her faith in very bad advice, and you should show her this thread ASAP.

Yes, it is entirely possible that they *are* sacking her because she's pregnant, but that's not the reason she's been given and she's refused to be flexible in her working. So proving it will be incredibly difficult.

KiKi

bluenoseam

I think your friend (and to an extent you) are being incredibly niave - as Emmzi pointed out, she's pregnant, an almost entirely self-inflicted condition, while it offers some protection the protection it does offer is pretty much useless against anyone with half a brain cell & enough sensibility to avoid saying "we're sacking you because you're pregnant", which lets face it you'd need to be monumentally stupid to say!

She is being given USELESS advice, absolutely pointless, she does not have any right to "reduced hours" or anything like that, i know more than a few pregnant women who've worked full time shifts through their pregnancy until 6+ months into it! Her employer is NOT responsible for what she has to eat or when she has to eat it unless she has notified them of a specific dietery requirement (i.e. diabetic) meaning she has to eat every X hours, they're also not responsible for her home life or anything else, that's entirely her OWN responsibility. I've never heard of any pregnant women being given extra breaks, i have heard of employers being more flexible (so splitting an hour break into 40m + 2 x 10m breaks) but to give extra breaks because of purely being pregnant would be a bit much, if there is underlying problems then it's possible, but would need to be negotiated with an employer individually.

She was told she was fired for not meeting the needs of the business, in writing this was worded as not being flexible - i'll put it this way, by not being flexible she's NOT helping the needs of the business, a perfectly legal & correct reason for getting shot of her. She will not (or cannot) be flexible enough, but i can without shadow of a doubt tell you there will be 100 people who will work any hours the employer gives them, if i were an employer i'd be looking for someone who if i have a busy period was willing to do a shift for me, rotas are all well and good, that tells you when you're supposed to be in, but they're rarely if ever set in stone - the working world doesn't run to precise measure.

Here's the short form, whoever's telling you she's got any "claim" for anything is talking out their backside, she's been sacked for not meeting the needs of the business with regards to her flexibility of work. She's expecting them to be flexible with her and not offering anything in return, where i come from we call that a "chancer" and well, they don't last long in the employment world!

dickydonkin

She is being given USELESS advice, absolutely pointless, she does not have any right to "reduced hours" or anything like that

Playing devils advocate here - but what if a risk assessment determines that someone who is pregnant cannot work longer or at weekends? - that is why a risk assessment has to be carried out to ensure that there is nothing in the workplace or a pregnant employees duties that will increase the risk to the unborn child or indeed the mother.

I appreciate that no assessment has been carried out here - but hypothetically - someone who perhaps does heavy manual work or is exposed to chemicals/fumes/dust etc. during the course of their work who then informs their employer they are pregnant may need to have reduced hours/shift changes etc. because of the potentially increased risk to the unborn child and the mother.

bluenoseam - Maybe you should read this - some may suggest it is you who is being "niave".

Emmzi

Dicky - yes, although I'd go for change in duties where possible but where not possible same pay/ less hours does happen.

But as I am sure you know on this occassion waving about the book of rights is going to accomplish nothing. So theoretically useful, practical? No.

dickydonkin

Emmzi wrote: »

Dicky - yes, although I'd go for change in duties where possible but where not possible same pay/ less hours does happen.

But as I am sure you know on this occassion waving about the book of rights is going to accomplish nothing. So theoretically useful, practical? No.

Absolutely - I suspect (in fact I'm certain) that none of the examples I gave would be relevant to the OP's friend - but what I was highlighting that there are certain jobs and workplaces that may need adjustments and considerations to protect the mother and unborn child.

ohreally

bluenoseam wrote: »

I've never heard of any pregnant women being given extra breaks

bluenoseam wrote: »

but to give extra breaks because of purely being pregnant would be a bit much

The facility exists (in some circs) for pregnant women to spend their time on full pay sitting in the home or doing as they see fit...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/67 &

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/3242/regulation/16/made (3)