at risk of redundancy on maternity leave - please help

MoneySavingMission

My job has been put officially "at risk of redundancy" and i'm currently on mat leave.
I have a few questions
* Regs 10 say that if "suitable and appropriate" alternative position available this should be offered to me with priority ahead of other employees. Is this true?
* Part worked KIT days to attend meetings - i know they count as full days but are they paid as full days?
Thanks
* What benefits would i be entitled to if made redundant?

MoneySavingMission

In addition, it says i don't need to attend any interviews???

silvercar

My friend has just been told this, 23 days before starting her maternity leave. But she has been told she is guaranteed her job back.

Its an odd situation in that there are only 2 of them doing similar jobs and one of the posts is going, so if she is guaranteed her job back then that means the other one will lose her job just because she isn't pregnant!

MoneySavingMission

anybody else got knowledge of Regs 10?

Googlewhacker

silvercar wrote: »

My friend has just been told this, 23 days before starting her maternity leave. But she has been told she is guaranteed her job back.

Its an odd situation in that there are only 2 of them doing similar jobs and one of the posts is going, so if she is guaranteed her job back then that means the other one will lose her job just because she isn't pregnant!

And thus where the regulations are stupid!

As to the OP, unless the company offer to pay a full days pay the KIT days are only paid for the hours you do so you may want to see if you could go back for the whole day each time you use one.

caeler

Yes you are totally correct and shockingly most employers are not fully aware of this obligation. This is a very nice peice of law that protects women on maternity leave. Suitable alternative is a tad selective, however I believe that means same pay, grade, type of work and same location and that is what vacancies within your company should be searched. And yes it absolutely means without interviewing for it, EVEN if there are more suitable/qualified candidates!! Thats usually the bit employers have a problem with.

I recommend you ask your manager (or whoever is conducting the consultation with you) how they will be searching vacancies for suitable alternatives and how you can be involved in the process. It doesn't mean they have to create a vacancy for you.

ianianian_2

caeler wrote: »

This is a very nice peice of law that protects women on maternity leave.

Wow - i can't believe this is true and certainly don't agree with it being a nice piece of law (sorry caeler - you are very helpful and knowledgable, but i just can't agree with you here).

Whether you keep your job or not should have nothing to do with anything other than how good/ suitable you are for the job. What is it about being pregnant that means you should be promised a job above anyone else?

I'm on consultation. They're restructuring an office made up of trainers and team leaders into an office of trainers (with a slightly different job title). We've been informed that a couple of team leaders that are off pregnant have been guarenteed jobs ahead of existing trainers. If this law does exist (which i honestly couldn't believe when someone first mentioned it), i'm sure it can't be being applied in the correct way in this instance.

Googlewhacker

ianianian wrote: »

Wow - i can't believe this is true and certainly don't agree with it being a nice piece of law (sorry caeler - you are very helpful and knowledgable, but i just can't agree with you here).

Whether you keep your job or not should have nothing to do with anything other than how good/ suitable you are for the job. What is it about being pregnant that means you should be promised a job above anyone else?

I'm on consultation. They're restructuring an office made up of trainers and team leaders into an office of trainers (with a slightly different job title). We've been informed that a couple of team leaders that are off pregnant have been guarenteed jobs ahead of existing trainers. If this law does exist (which i honestly couldn't believe when someone first mentioned it), i'm sure it can't be being applied in the correct way in this instance.

It has and yes the law sucks but ultimately its the law...

marybelle01

Googlewhacker wrote: »

It has and yes the law sucks but ultimately its the law...

Actually - it isn't. This only applies to women on ordinary maternity leave. There was some case law about a year ago I think (might be a bit longer) in which it was established that this preferential treatment during extended maternity leave is potentially sex discrimination. So it isn't at all that simple. And, of course, if the at risk period continues until the end of the maternity leave, then redundancy can kick in the minute she returns. To say nothing of the issue, where it applies, of redeployment pools into which women on maternity leave can be placed. It isn't at all as straight forward as some people here seem to think.

jetplane

Employers have to be very careful with pregnant women and maternity leave, it is easy to fall foul of the law. OP I would visit www.maternityaction.org.uk they also have a helpline.

MoneySavingMission

i'm on OML so it does apply.
How do they define "suitable"? As per earlier helpful reply this was deemed as same skills, pay grade, location etc. Anybody else got information on this?