Sacked whilst pregnant - thoughts?

Caroline_a

I think that whatever the rights and wrongs of this, the OP's sister needs to work out whether she wants to go through the stress of a tribunal when she will be fairly far along in her pregnancy. I've been through the run-up to a tribunal, and it isn't a fun thing to do. In my case they gave in at last minute and paid out, and mine was, as this seems, very cut and dried, but it was tough.

Mrs_Imp

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.

Come spend a day with me and my yellow bucket, then you'll see. I have been hospitalised with sickness, as I couldn't keep anything down for a week. I am taking strong anti-sickness tablets just to enable me to function. I don't really have much of a life beyond my bucket to be honest, but at least I'm not on a drip at the moment. Last time, my sickness lasted for 38 weeks.

OP, your sister needs to get some advice about her legal position, then I think she should sit down with the parents and have a chat with them about why she has been made redundant. The best outcome would be an amicable one - it's quicker and less stressful all round.

fluffnutter

pleasedelete wrote: »

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

You are..

a) a woman who's never been pregnant
b) a woman who suffered minimally or not at all with MS whilst pregnant
c) a man.

Trust me, 'pregnancy sickness' can not only last all day and make you feel worse than you've ever felt, it can put you in hospital too.

*Robin*

As someone who is going to have to employ a private carer very soon, I thank the OP for bringing up this subject; revealing a possible complication that had not occurred to me.

In this case the parents were relying on OP's sister - presumably she simply let them down rather than arranging a replacement when she could not work? Did she discuss her plans for starting a family when she took on the job?

I feel for all parties concerned; obviously morning sickness and the danger of being kicked in the stomach are very worrying for OP's sister, but it is also essential that the employee is absolutely reliable from the parents' point of view.

I am wondering if a job-share might have been a better solution? Less hours for each sharer, true, but much more flexibility to allow for times when each carer is not able to work for whatever reason.

SingleSue

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.

As my former employers discovered when they said I had effectively ended my employment by giving them a sicknote for 7 days and sent me my P45 in the post.

Apart from that sicknote, I had never had a day off sick whilst there (I had been there 2 years).

Mind you, that was nearly 16 years ago now and water under the bridge but it was certainly incredibly stressful at the time and only added to what ended up being a difficult pregnancy and an even worse delivery.

Tish_P

Does she have a union? They are very helpful in these situations and can often give professional legal advice free to members.

Nicki

fluffnutter wrote: »

You are..

a) a woman who's never been pregnant
b) a woman who suffered minimally or not at all with MS whilst pregnant
c) a man.

Trust me, 'pregnancy sickness' can not only last all day and make you feel worse than you've ever felt, it can put you in hospital too.

Hmmm. Some women do get very bad morning sickness it is true. However if OP's sister had hyperemsis and was in need of hospitalisation for fluids, I would expect her to have had more time off than 7 days in the first trimester, and that she could back this up by a medical certificate.

Some women, by no means all, do use pregnancy as an excuse not to pull their weight. I've had 3 kids, with the usual pregnancy complications of morning sickness and SPD, so I know how it feels not to feel your best. But I've also read pregnancy forums and chat boards throughout each of those pregnancies and have read how some women want to be treated with kid gloves when pregnant, and will take time off when it's not completely necessary because they knew pregnancy related illnesses are treated differently. I've read more than once of people taking a day off because they felt queasy in the morning, or because they were exhausted, yet going to work in either case is no different from struggling into work with a hangover which most of us have done in younger days . I've seen women demand favourable shifts as soon as they get their BFP because they don't like working until 8pm in a call centre roll, and women going sick when a request to work from home was refused, because travelling made them tired, or stiff. I have no problem with a pregnant woman staying at home if she is genuinely throwing up copiously, or working from home if her SPD has her on crutches, but refusing to work in situations falling short of this does seem to me to a bit precious. I certainly struggled into work in those circumstances until the very last moment in my first two pregnancies, and as an employer, I'd take a dim view of a woman I thought was milking the system and taking a lot of self certified time off using the pregnancy related illness excuse.

OP says her sister is 15 weeks pregnant now, and has had about 7 and a half days off sick. So assuming she discovered she was pregnant at 4 weeks, which is pretty early on, and that she works 5 days a week, she's been off for 15% of her working hours already and is only a third of the way into the pregnancy. I can see why the parents are worried that she either won't be willing to, or isn't able to, do the job she has been employed to do.

As for saving costs, that is a red herring. The government pays the full cost of statutory maternity leave in these circumstances, and there should be no costs involved in reducing her hours either when the child starts boarding school. Though if the sisters earnings fell below a certain level at that point, she might not qualify for statutory maternity pay anyway, so it may actually be doing her a favour to let her go now before her pregnancy is too visible to find more work, and get maternity allowance at a higher rate in the long run.

Lara44

Is pregnancy related sickness really any different to other types of illness? Any carer can develop a condition whether male or female young or old. Anyone can have an accident or be injured in everyday life.

It is the parents who are ultimately responsible for their child's care, and not the carer. It seems harsh to suggest that OP's sister's sickness is her own fault. And even harsher to be sacked for that reason...

*Robin*

Nicki wrote: »

OP says her sister is 15 weeks pregnant now, and has had about 7 and a half days off sick. So assuming she discovered she was pregnant at 4 weeks, which is pretty early on, and that she works 5 days a week, she's been off for 15% of her working hours already and is only a third of the way into the pregnancy. I can see why the parents are worried that she either won't be willing to, or isn't able to, do the job she has been employed to do.

This calculation is what most concerned me. Presumably the parents *need* care relief for the total hours they are employing OP's sister for, so being let down 15% of that time - probably with little notice - puts them in a terrible position which could actually be dangerous for their child if they are too exhausted to supervise properly.
If the carer cannot fulfil her role, then surely the parents have the right to replace her with someone who can do the job?

amyloofoo

Hi everyone,

Thanks very much for all the advice. Thought I'd pop on and answer some of the questions / issues that have come up.

My sister is very sympathetic towards the parents and understands their position having been a large part of their life for the last year. She's very attached to the little girl and understood that her pregnancy and the girl's move to a boarding school would lead to changes in her working conditions / shifts - she has just been upset and surprised at being told she was sacked with no notice and without them trying to sit her down and work out a solution for everyone.

DS has been ill with severe morning sickness since quite early on in the pregnancy. This is not bad enough to leave her so dehydrated she needs to go to hospital (quite often it's just repeated dry heaving), but there have been occasions when she's gone into work but has been forced to leave as it distresses the little girl to see her being so unwell and this can lead to challenging behaviour.

I (and my sister) appreciate that 7 or so days off is a lot for a family who live in very difficult circumstances and are balancing the needs of a profoundly ill little girl with those of 2 working parents. DS was concerned about the impact of the pregnancy on the little girl when she became pregnant (which was a welcome but unplanned surprise) and informed the parents as soon as she had the pregnancy confirmed by her GP. Having done this, a risk assessment was completed and although the situation was by no means ideal, I don't really know what more DS could have done.

I think she suspected that they might ask her to leave following her disclosure of the pregnancy, but she's disappointed that they chose not to discuss their issues with her first. The way they have gone about things seems to be very cold and arbitrary considering that DS has cared for their daughter in their own home for the last year and has come to know and like the family very well.

They have known ever since she was employed that she's a newlywed who wanted her own family in the future. It certainly wasn't her plan to become pregnant so soon, but it can't have come as a massive surprise to the family - another reason why she's suprised they have been so unsympathetic.

DS is going to the jobcentre today to see how they can help and she's going to see CAB early next week so hopefully she'll be feeling more positive soon. As I've previously said, she likes and sympathises with the family and has no desire to cause any problems for them so I don't think she'll be taking them to tribunal, even if she's told that she would be able to. I think she's more disappointed and wanting to know where to go from here in terms of looking for more employment / who will pay maternity leave, etc rather than seeking to punish the family in any way.