Career Break entitlements?

KayJay

I wonder if one of our experts may know the answer to this one please?

Organisation is going through restructure i.e. reducing workforce.
Job descriptions are being rewritten; old jobs are disappearing and new similar ones being created.
Employees are being placed in pools where they have performed similar role.

All that is being done and working okay so far.

But the latest one has caused a furore. In a group of 20 staff who did the 'old' job where there are 20 'new' similar jobs
they would automatically slot into the new roles
BUT there are three people on career breaks who did that old job.
HR are insisting they should go into the pool.
This of course means the staff have to compete, potentially against three people who are abroad doing different jobs and may eventually not even come back. They won't be here to 'compete' but in fact that may just be a paper exercise of selecting three out for redundancy.

So my question is whether they should be doing this. As far as I understood, a person takes a career break with our company and their contract says they will return either into their old job or go onto the register to be redeployed and if they get nothing within the set time then they are made redundant.

In this case - their old role will have gone and so there is nothing for them to come back into.

Why would they be put into this pool when they would mean someone else who has been working for that time they have been absent on a career break should lose their job?

By the was these career breaks are not linked to maternity leave which I understand is totally different.

If someone could please give me any advice then I would be very grateful

t0rt0ise

I think the employer is taking the right course of action. It would be very mean to leave out the absent employees. The company agreed to them taking the break so the company should keep their interests in mind.

KiKi

People on a career break are usually still employed, just not being paid - and with what you've said about your company, that's the case here.

I agree with the previous poster - whilst employed they have the right to apply for other jobs, and be part of organisational restructures. The fact that they are not sitting in the office and working right now, where others are, is a red herring - they are still employed in those roles. You're seeing it as 20 people into 20 jobs; whereas it's actually 23 current roles (with 20 people in the office right now) into 20 new ones.

In addition, from the organisation's perspective, they want the best people in those roles. Some of the people on career breaks may be better than those currently working there.

pinkshoes

If you were on a career break and got made redundant because of not being at work, surely you'd be annoyed?

Jaybee_16

You have 20 available posts and 23 staff including the 3 on career breaks. I understand the company including the 3 others, but assuming 3 of the current 20 are not successful, who will be covering those 3 posts? Will it be temporary staff until the career break 3 return?

KayJay

Thanks for your replies. I'm still not happy. These career break people are abroad doing different jobs like estate agent/nanny/security guard and earning money there. They probably won't come back. If they are included in this pool they could get the job and three other staff could be made redundant. Then they possibly won't return anyway.
The company will be putting them on redeployment if/when they return so they can obtain another role in the company. Their contract clearly says that while on a career break if their job ceases, that they would return and go straight to redeployment. Now they are changing that by doing it this way.

I would be happy with them saying they could be in the pool IF they were intending to return to work to carry out the job if they get it.

Thanks anyway folks!

KiKi

KayJay wrote: »

I would be happy with them saying they could be in the pool IF they were intending to return to work to carry out the job if they get it.

Thanks anyway folks!

That may well be part of the plan (which HR just haven't shared with you). Ie, they may say to people "we will only consider you, though, if you can share a specific date with us on when you plan to return. Otherwise you're at risk and will return to the redeployment pool" or similar.

In my previous company, people on a career break of 12 months or less had their job held open - and only 4 weeks' notice to return. Over 12 months, and you were effectively resigning, with the promise of a job if there was one. So it may also be that those on career breaks are being considered because unless they have said they categorically they don't plan to return, they are still within a certain time limit to return, and therefore have to be considered. I'm sure when undertaking the restructure that HR will ask them that question - because, as you say, they'd be silly to give a job to someone not returning.

Hope it all goes well.

KME91

You have no concrete idea whether or not these people are planning to return. The only people that do are those on the break, and perhaps their managers or HR maybe. For example, I took a 2 year career break and until the very last three months of that break I was not sure whether I was going to return or not. My employer operated on the basis that I was going back as agreed. The career breakers have been promised something in writing by their employer, that they will be able to return to their jobs following the completion of their career break, and if the employer breaks that agreement they could well be on the receiving end of legal action from those employees.

It also really doesn't matter where they've gone or what they're doing, it's a matter of contractual obligations. Unless there is a clause in the career break agreement allowing for those on such a break to be made redundant first in a redundancy situation then they must be treated like any other employee, otherwise the employer could find themselves in hot water.

Basil74

I'm surprised your firm are allowing those on the career breaks to be employed elsewhere most companies don't allow people on career breaks to work elsewhere, if as you say they've got no intention of coming back it does seem rather unfair... it's like they're having their cake and eating eat, going off and finding another permanent job but still having the option for return to work or a redundancy deal from your firm.

FBaby

At least they are not given priority. I believe that when employee women are off on maternity leave, not only are they not excluded, but they have to come back to a job, so are automatically slotted in the jobs whilst whoever is left have to apply...At least that was the case with my organisation.

In any case, if these people on breaks are unwilling to come back, surely they will welcome a redundancy package anyway?

marybelle01

KayJay wrote: »

Their contract clearly says that while on a career break if their job ceases, that they would return and go straight to redeployment. Now they are changing that by doing it this way.

No, they are not changing it by doing it this way. The contract clearly says, you say, that if their job ceases while they are away they go into redeployment. Their job has not ceased - their agreement is such that they continue to have full employment rights, just as anyone else who is "away" - people who are sick, on maternity / paternity leave, etc. If the job and has ceased and there is no suitable alternative then none of you would have the right to the jobs. Their employment does not cease until they are dismissed, just like any of you. If the employer was now to exclude them from the process, each of them would have the right to claim unfair dismissal, and they would have a very strong case to argue. If the employer did not want people on career breaks to retain their right to employment, they should have a different policy - the one they have treats them as every other employee is treated. I am afraid that it is you who is arguing that the rules should be changed after the event, not the employer.