Sacked whilst pregnant - thoughts?

thegirlintheattic

I doubt the direct reason for your sister losing her job was her pregnancy. Seems more like the parent's had found your sister's poor attendance unacceptable - there is no difference between pregnancy related illness and other illness. An employer is within their rights to terminate employment if absence becomes an issue - which it undoubtedly does very quickly in a caring role.

It also sounds like it's the best outcome if you think of the long term. Your sister was going to have her hours severely reduced come September, possibly even sacked if the parents could manage a weekend of care between them. The job provided a high-risk environment whilst pregnant. Now your sister is safe and can look for a new job that will provide the hours she needs.

She will have the rights to take it to tribunal but I think it's unlikely she will win. Even if she does, the parents will not be forced to take her back, they are unlikely to have the funds to pay a substantial settlement and your sister will find it hard to get care work in the future.

amyloofoo

Nicki wrote: »

There is no qualifying period when the dismissal is by reason of pregnancy, so you don't need to worry about that.

That being said, as the parent of a disabled child who employs a part time carer, I have huge amounts of sympathy for the parents if your sister had indeed had "quite a bit of time off" over the last 3 months. If she doesn't turn up to work, then the parents effectively have to work 24 hours a day between them, maybe even sleeping in shifts, for days or weeks on end. That isn't sustainable long term and it is why parents like me employ carers for some personal respite and a chance to recharge batteries. It is very hard to get a substitute carer at short notice for an unknown length of time, and most parents wouldn't feel comfortable leaving a vulnerable child with a total stranger, even while they were in the house just catching up on sleep.

I have been lucky in that although my carer has had two maternity leaves while employed by us, she hasn't taken time off during either pregnancy unti her leave started. Had she taken a lot of time off while pregnant, I would though have been sorely tempted to do what these parents have done. And I have instituted disciplinary processes against other non pregnant carers for excessive time off as it can't be accomodated in this kind of role.

Morally then, I think the best solution would be for the parents to give your sister a lump sum payment (maybe a month's salary) and for your sister to leave if she isn't going to be able to commit to good attendance during her pregnancy. Legally though, she will have rights to take them to a tribunal, but I wouldn't expect the damages she will be awarded to be huge.

I know Nicki, it's hard because both sides have good reasons for behaving as they have. I can only hope that once the shock has worn off and she's got some good advice then hopefully my sister and her employers can work out some kind of amicable settlement.

It's hard for my sister because although she understands why the parents have done this, it puts her and her husband in a difficult position financially; and as she rightly says 'who is going to employ a pregnant woman whose only work experience is in care?'

I also feel the need to clarify that she's had around 7 full or half days off in the last 3 months - I don't think I'd said how much it was before and I think some posters may have got the wrong idea about how often this was occuring.

thegirlintheattic

amyloofoo wrote: »

I also feel the need to clarify that she's had around 7 full or half days off in the last 3 months - I don't think I'd said how much it was before and I think some posters may have got the wrong idea about how often this was occuring.

For many employers this would be an unacceptable amount of absence. My OH gets disciplined after three days in any rolling 12 month period.

pleasedelete

At 15 weeks pregnant she would only have been having baby related illness for part of the 3 months. Why was she off before that?

It seems odd that pregnancy sickness would need a whole day off or even a half.

scottishchick27

pleasedelete wrote: »

At 15 weeks pregnant she would only have been having baby related illness for part of the 3 months. Why was she off before that?

It seems odd that pregnancy sickness would need a whole day off or even a half.

My morning sickness in my last pregnancy lasted all day so it is perfectly feasible that her sister would need the whole day off.

alwaysonthego_2

scottishchick27 wrote: »

My morning sickness in my last pregnancy lasted all day so it is perfectly feasible that her sister would need the whole day off.

I was very ill with morning sickness which lasted for 12 weeks and for the full day. I almost got taken into hospital for dehydration. I can see why she took time off for this.

peachyprice

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

- there is no difference between pregnancy related illness and other illness. An employer is within their rights to terminate employment if absence becomes an issue - which it undoubtedly does very quickly in a caring role.

I'm afraid that's not the case. Pregnancy related sickness cannot be used against an employee as grounds for dismissal, it's instant unfair dismissal on grounds of sex discrimination.

This applies from day 1 of employment, so it's irrelevant how long she has worked for them, legally they simply cannot sack her for pregnancy related sickness.

alleycat`

peachyprice wrote: »

I'm afraid that's not the case. Pregnancy related sickness cannot be used against an employee as grounds for dismissal, it's instant unfair dismissal on grounds of sex discrimination.

This applies from day 1 of employment, so it's irrelevant how long she has worked for them, legally they simply cannot sack her for pregnancy related sickness.

This might be the case but it would be utterly ruinous, both financially and physically for the parents in this case to have to put up with random days off for weeks on end.

In that regard alone the parents have my sympathy.

I also have sympathy for the OPs sister as it is a shock to just get dropped like this and is somewhat unfair.

However, If she wasn't pregnant, she would have been subject to this outcome as my "reading between the lines" thoughts on this are the parents were not going to keep her on anyway.

In my mind the fair thing would be that they paid the OPs sister off with a months full pay (as the child was going away in September) and supplying a good reference.

I'm surprised they didn't do that just to keep out of the way of "pregnancy" getting blamed for what seemed a likely outcome.

It isn't fun to lose your job whatever the circumstances that is for sure

peachyprice

alleycat` wrote: »

This might be the case but it would be utterly ruinous, both financially and physically for the parents in this case to have to put up with random days off for weeks on end.

In that regard alone the parents have my sympathy.

I also have sympathy for the OPs sister as it is a shock to just get dropped like this and is somewhat unfair.

However, If she wasn't pregnant, she would have been subject to this outcome as my , reading between the lines, thoughts on this are the parents were not going to keep her on anyway.

In my mind the fair thing would be that they paid the OPs sister off with a months full pay as per the Child going away in September and a good reference.

I'm surprised they didn't do that just to keep out of the way of "pregnancy" getting blamed for what seemed like a likely outcome.

It isn't fun to lose your job whatever the circumstances that is for sure

Oh, I agree, I was just claifiying the point GITA made about pregnancy related illness being treated the same as normal illness.

alleycat`

peachyprice wrote: »

Oh, I agree, I was just claifiying the point GITA made about pregnancy related illness being treated the same as normal illness.

NP

O and somebody watches Cougar Town (looking at your footer). :eek: