Employment issue

sshaw101

Hi all and thanks in advance for anyone who can help.

My wife has recently been on maternity leave and started back at her work on a 4 day week (agreed with her employer) on Feb 1st - although this was taken as holiday up to mid March. Her mother then unfortunately passed away and so took some bereavement/unpaid leave until end of March.

During this period her company were makeing people redundant and she was at risk. However a few weeks ago she was told she is no longer at risk as her role is required. Yet they say her role now has to be 5 days and not the agreed 4 days (sickness/holiday had been based on 4 days since her "return" at the start of Feb). Although no contract was signed, by her employer paying her holiday and sickness on 4 days a week is this deemed that they accepted the 4 day a week role?

At the moment she is signed off sick with bereavement so still has not physically returned to work - but feels very frustrated that at one of the hardest times in her life, her employer is making it 10 times harder.

Where does she stand? She asked the question that if the role is 5 days a week does this mean she is back under consultation (they said no).

It seems like they are trying to manage her out (by insisting the role is 5 days and knowing she can not do 5 days due to childcare etc).

Any advice/tips will be greatly appreciated.

ohreally

sshaw101 wrote: »

My wife has recently been on maternity leave and started back at her work on a 4 day week (agreed with her employer) on Feb 1st - although this was taken as holiday up to mid March.

What was the basis of the agreement?

Working a shortened week funded by a/l is not the same as an agreed contractual change to a 4 day week.

Was the intention to work 4 days by a contract variation due to flexible working agreement following her return from maternity leave - if so why was the a/l factored in?

sshaw101

Thanks for the reply.

the agreement was verbal (and referred to in emails).