Maternity leave problem

Billy84_2

Hi,
recently, my partner has found out that she was pregnant. We knew that she needed to tell her employer about this at least 15 weeks before the estimated due date (this should be the end of january 2012). She actually told them on November 28th (about 24 weeks before her due date). This week her employer has been asking her if he can see a doctors certificate, or her medical notes to ascertain when she 1st became pregnant. She mistakenly believed that they required the MAT B1 form (the form you have to give your employer, that you receive at your 20 week midwife appointment). He later informed her that this was not what he wanted and he actually wanted to know the date that she became pregnant. He also informed her that he was sending an area manager to see her and "investigate" to "come to the right decision". He said all of this in Emails. Over the phone, when she called him to follow up on the email, he said to her that he would send a senior manager to investigate her, that she was in breach of the law by not disclosing that she was pregnant at her interview (she has only been at the job for 2 1/2 months) and that after the "investigation" they would decide if they "wanted to keep her on".

My question is; is any of this unlawful?? (I'm fairly sure it is) we have copies of the emails he sent.. But, obviously the phone call is all his word against hers (i assume)
She has been signed off of work for 2 weeks due to the stress this has caused her. It's really worrying me, as it is our 1st baby and stress can be a real problem. She believes (and so do I) that they are looking for any excuse to get rid of her. If this is the case, would she have a good case if this was to go to a tribunal? What would be the likely outcome of such a tribunal??

I hope somebody can help us out on here, and any help or advice would be very gratefully received.

Thanks a lot

Tigsteroonie

You're correct in saying that she only has to inform her employer by the 15th week before due date. She was under no obligation to tell them that she was pregnant at the interview, nor on starting the job.

It is discrimination to deny her the job purely on the basis of her pregnancy.

However, I believe it is quite difficult to enforce. Employers can dispense with employees within the first year of employment simply by saying that it isn't working out. Her extended period of sick leave, being related to the situation rather than a pregnancy-related illness, would probably be reason enough for them.

He sounds a bit of an idiot. She could try calling him and saying that she still doesn't understand why a senior manager needs to see her, and please could he put the reason in an email.

However - if the stress of this situation is making her ill, is she really up to trying to fight the situation through a tribunal? It'd be far more stressful.

Billy84_2

Thanks a lot. I appreciate the advice, it's very helpful.
I'm just so annoyed that they are saying things like they have to "investigate" her.. They are actually trying to tell her that they'll decide if she can go on maternity leave or not. They don't seem to understand that it's a legal right.:mad:

Tigsteroonie

Billy84 wrote: »

Thanks a lot. I appreciate the advice, it's very helpful.
I'm just so annoyed that they are saying things like they have to "investigate" her.. They are actually trying to tell her that they'll decide if she can go on maternity leave or not. They don't seem to understand that it's a legal right.:mad:

Would she be entitled to any salary-based maternity pay from them? Or only SMP? (Depends on her contract)

Was she working before this job, would she be entitled to any Maternity Allowance if she was out of work (instead of SMP)?

And, given what she's seen of their attitude towards staff, does she really want to return to work for them after her maternity leave?

Billy84_2

We're looking into that at the moment. She would not be entitled to smp (she hasn't been there long enough), but she would be entitled to Maternity Allowance.

We've been discussing whether or not she would want to go back after maternity leave... She wanted to start her leave in March. Originally she would have been more than happy to return, since she really likes (liked) the job... But, since all this awful behaviour from her boss, I don't think she'll really want to.

It really surprises me, that in this day and age, employers can have such a Dickensian, backwards attitude to their employees!

sleepless_saver

Tigsteroonie (and OP), dismissing someone on the grounds of their pregnancy is an automatically unfair reason for dismissal. As such, she doesn't have to have worked there for a year. And thanks to the string of emails from the idiot manager it would be possible to demonstrate to a tribunal what the real reason was.

That doesn't solve the immediate problem though. Have a look at the Maternity Action website for leaflet on rights during pregnancy, and on the EHRC website for guidance for employers

Tigsteroonie

Billy84 wrote: »

It really surprises me, that in this day and age, employers can have such a Dickensian, backwards attitude to their employees!

Legally they can't, but as I said, other reasons can be stated for laying off staff in their first year without any real comeback.

And many business owners would possibly agree with her employer, even if they wouldn't say so publicly. From their perspective, they've spent money and time on recruitment and possibly also training, only to find out that they will be losing their new employee shortly for up to a year. They are then faced with recruiting and training again for a fixed term replacement.

Tigsteroonie

sleepless_saver wrote: »

Tigsteroonie (and OP), dismissing someone on the grounds of their pregnancy is an automatically unfair reason for dismissal. As such, she doesn't have to have worked there for a year. And thanks to the string of emails from the idiot manager it would be possible to demonstrate to a tribunal what the real reason was.

My point was that only a very stupid employer would state that as the reason, they would normally find a different excuse. Do you think that the emails are sufficient evidence of reason? They sound potentially ambiguous to me (although asking the date of conception is a bit nosey!)

Billy84_2

Thanks to you sleepless saver for your help. Those links are extremely helpful.

sleepless_saver

Tigsteroonie wrote: »

My point was that only a very stupid employer would state that as the reason, they would normally find a different excuse. Do you think that the emails are sufficient evidence of reason? They sound potentially ambiguous to me (although asking the date of conception is a bit nosey!)

I see what you mean. It's the combination of asking for confidential information about the actual date of conception with the other email about sending a manager to "investigate" that would convince me, but then I'm not a tribunal member.

Incidentally, I'd be keeping a written record at the time of any phone calls in case needed in evidence later.

Uncertain

I would strongly suggest you keep every shred of evidence you can get your hands on and also keep a careful diary of who said what to whom.

As you know the manager was totally wrong to suggest that she had broken the law by not telling them at interview. In fact, they would have broken the law had they asked!