Been made redundant whilst on maternity...

Priya79

Hi
Sorry in advance for the long post...
I've been made redundant whilst on mat leave and wondered if anyone could advise me on how I should approach the 'Appeals' stage please? (I'm actually meeting HR tomorrow - 9th Dec!)
In brief - I worked as a pa to the CEO a few years ago. I fell pregnant went on Mat leave and returned to work 9 months later to the same job and to be told there isn't actually a job as there was a new permanent PA who replaced me! Anyway whilst I was waiting to speak to my manager back then and another MD asked me what I was doing etc. And asked if I would be his PA. I said yes as I knew there was 'no room' in the London office. Anyway fast forward two years and I am on mat leave again and now the guy I used to work for has left the company. So I've been made redundant...but unfairly. They didn't pool any other PA's in and basically told me that there's no job for me.
Is this unfair dismissal? Thanks P x

sangie595

Conceivably, yes it may be unfair dismissal. But if you are not in a union it would be wise to get legal advice because it also potentially involves discrimination claims, which are more complex, so you need someone who knows what they are doing to look at the details.

AndyBSG

Not sure how it is unfair.

You were PA to a MD, that MD has now left so the PA role is no longer required.

Seems like a genuine redundancy of that PA role. If it is unfair really hinges on the job descriptions for the other PA roles.

i.e. does your job description say you are a PA for the MD of finance, another PA's description says they are PA to the MD of HR or are the PA job descriptions in that you all essentially have the same role?

sangie595

AndyBSG wrote: »

Not sure how it is unfair.

You were PA to a MD, that MD has now left so the PA role is no longer required.

Seems like a genuine redundancy of that PA role. If it is unfair really hinges on the job descriptions for the other PA roles.

i.e. does your job description say you are a PA for the MD of finance, another PA's description says they are PA to the MD of HR or are the PA job descriptions in that you all essentially have the same role?

It may be unfair because:
(a) anyone with a same or similar role should be pooled in the event of redundancy - if there are other PA's then they should all be in the pool. The fact that a particular director has left is irrelevant - the jobs of PA still exist. There may be a need for one less, but that is the extent of it.
(b) A person on maternity leave automatically gets a job of the remaining jobs over any other candidate. That is the law.
(c) This has now happened twice. That would indicate a blatant disregard of the law on the part of the employer.

I would be very optimistic of the OP getting positive legal advice. There is no such thing as a sure bet in employment law, but on the face of it, this could well be looking at a rather large award. The first "law" of redundancy during maternity leave, for employers, is don't do it unless you happen to be closing - wait until the first day back because the additional protections afforded someone on maternity leave cease the minute they walk through the door. Not knowing that will cost this employer dearly - I suspect a settlement could be easily achieved.

martinsurrey

sangie595 wrote: »

It may be unfair because:

(b) A person on maternity leave automatically gets a job of the remaining jobs over any other candidate. That is the law.

that is not quite true.

A person on maternity should be offered a suitable alternative position above others, this is AFTER they have been fairly selected for redundancy. I will assume there are no suitable alternative roles open.

A person on maternity can be made redundant, as long as the employer makes sure the process is fair and disregards all aspects of the pregnancy and maternity.

Now then if it is unfair will hinge on the pool selection.

The employer does not need to pick the MOST fair pool, just a fair pool. A tribunal may find a different pool to be the best, but as long as the employer can demonstrate that their pool was at least fair, its fine ( see Lomond Motors Limited v Mr Robert Clark ).

One way of finding pools is to look at people who's work has either ceased, or diminished, or is expected to do so, or is no longer required at that location.

If the OP was assigned to a particular employee as a full time PA, and NOT a pool of PA's who are flexibly assigned to people, I think the employer could get away with making it a pool of one, making the choice of this person fair, based on the fact that the only employee who's workload has changed in that location is the persons PA.

This will also hinge on their plans for the vacant MD's role, if they are planning on hiring a new one, the PA role is not redundant.

The move from CEO PA to MD PA is a different case, I would consider it constructive dismissal due to maternity leave, sounds pretty open and shut tbh, but is separate from this redundancy case.

getmore4less

martinsurrey wrote: »

The move from CEO PA to MD PA is a different case, I would consider it constructive dismissal due to maternity leave, sounds pretty open and shut tbh, but is separate from this redundancy case.

The OP took extended maternity so the employer could make case for the job not being available, although just having someone else in the post may not be sufficient.

TBagpuss

It may be unfair because:
(a) anyone with a same or similar role should be pooled in the event of redundancy - if there are other PA's then they should all be in the pool. The fact that a particular director has left is irrelevant - the jobs of PA still exist. There may be a need for one less, but that is the extent of it.
(b) A person on maternity leave automatically gets a job of the remaining jobs over any other candidate. That is the law.
(c) This has now happened twice. That would indicate a blatant disregard of the law on the part of the employer.

That's not quite correct.
It is unlawful to treat someone who is pregnant or on maternity leave worse than if they were not, and it is unlawful to select for redundancy because they are pregnant or on maternity leave.

The issue over whether the job is redundant is not cut and dried. Employers must be reasonable in how they define the pool, and it will not be unfair if if the way the pool was defined was reasonable, even if there was also other, reasonable ways in which the pool could have ben defined. A pool of one is not automtically unreasonable.

In your case, if there are other PAs in the office your were working in, or in the form more generally, then it would be reasonable to question how the pool was defined

Op - how did your meeting go?

Priya79

Hi all, thank you very much for your responses.

I spoke with HR yesterday and they said they will get back to me next week having heard my case.
The MD who has now left - his job has been merged into one - so another guy is doing his job and he already has a PA based in York. They didn't pool her in. I did give them a chance to correct themselves but they didn't. I also asked a few times as to why no other PA's had been pooled into the process.

I also thought that since I was the PA to the CEO - they could have pooled that PA into the process? as my role is interchangeable. I didn't realise it was against the law to recruit a Permanent PA to cover my maternity leave. (I should have also added when I went on Mat leave the first time I was told that the reason for the perm PA is because they will need 2 PA's in the London office - which was not the case when I returned)

During the Redundancy process HR also harassed me into making decisions within 24 hours...e.g. the HR Mgr said to me that I will be made redundant and asked me if I will take a relatively small enhanced package (SRP plus £1.5k) and if so to let her know by 0900 the following morning so she can draw up the Settlement Agreement - and then went on to say that if I do take that then I won't have to pay tax etc (I know some parts of the payment are tax free but some are not. i.e. holiday and smp is taxable). After speaking to my solicitor - who advised I tell them to go through the proper channels to ensure I don't get into trouble from the HMRC.

I should also mention there was a round of PA redundancies early this year and 7-10 PA's were in the pool and the result was that 3-4 PA's were made redundant. However I wasn't pooled that time.

I am prepared to take them to an Employment Tribunal if the case is water tight, as I know how they've mistreated me for a second time and they've been quite bullyish with their whole approach but following my meeting yesterday they said they will let me know the outcome by next week. So will wait and see

Takeaway_Addict

I fail to see what you actually want as an end result, if its just revenge then get rid of that notion straight away.

If it is your job back then go for that, if it is for a pay off then go for that.

I would expect its unlikely they will allow it to go to a tribunal and will offer you a settlement agreement- If they refuse to give you your job back after appeals then work out a sensible plan of action not based on emotion.

getmore4less

They may be on the back foot if there is a settlement agreement on the table already.

How you play it from here depends what outcome you want.

they may have messed up in the past but that may(will) not count any more as you took an alternative it is up to you to know your rights.


DO you want a job or money?

Priya79

No I don't want revenge I have requested a reasonable financial package.