Redundancy because a colleague is on Maternity Leave

Undervalued

marliepanda wrote: »

Everyone has a protected characteristic.

It’s because of protected maternity rights, not discrimination. (Not that I agree that pregnancy should make people exempt from redundancy but that’s how it is)

It doesn't!

Many companies may choose to be extra cautious about making someone on maternity leave redundant but ultimately either the job is redundant or it isn't. If the job no longer needs doing you can lawfully make the employee redundant, pregnant or not.

sangie595

TELLIT01 wrote: »

I know the law protects people on Maternity Leave but it should be up to the employer to decide who they keep and who they don't as long as they can show valid business reasons for the decision. I don't know, but suspect the law came into force when the maternity leave period was much shorter than is currently the case.
There was a situation where I worked where a woman took the maximum allowed maternity leave and when she returned announced that she was pregnant again and would be working the minimum period to protect the maternity payment and would then be going off again. How is a situation like that fair on the employer?

No it didn't. It came into force through case law initially, because employers automatically made women on maternity leave "redundant". It was employers who got themselves into this situation.

TELLIT01

sangie595 wrote: »

No it didn't. It came into force through case law initially, because employers automatically made women on maternity leave "redundant". It was employers who got themselves into this situation.

So just another example of over reaction to a problem. I accept that some companies used redundancy to get rid of people they didn't want, but the result of the law has been situations such as that described by the OP, where a company ends up with nobody in a role because they can't get rid of a person who is not currently contributing irrespective of whether or not the other person is actually the better person for the job. That's idiotic.

BrassicWoman

https://www.maternityaction.org.uk/advice-2/mums-dads-scenarios/pregnant/redundancy-during-pregnancy-and-maternity-leave/

getmore4less

When did 52 weeks go on statute?

getmore4less

Employers can still get rid just have to make sure there is no suitable alternative(not always easy).

The issue is where there is an alternative and a choice of employees more suitable is not sufficient to trump maternity.

sangie595

getmore4less wrote: »

When did 52 weeks go on statute?

With the exception of the two weeks (unpaid) compulsory maternity leave (six weeks for factory workers), maternity leave did not become universal until 1993. Off the top of my head, it was 1999 when the law on redundancy and maternity leave was enacted after case law found that simply making women redundant because they were on maternity leave was unlawful.

A years maternity leave entitlement was 2006.

sangie595

TELLIT01 wrote: »

So just another example of over reaction to a problem. I accept that some companies used redundancy to get rid of people they didn't want, but the result of the law has been situations such as that described by the OP, where a company ends up with nobody in a role because they can't get rid of a person who is not currently contributing irrespective of whether or not the other person is actually the better person for the job. That's idiotic.

None of which has yet happened! We don't know what will happen, and it may be that the employer is happy to wait for the woman to come back because she's their best employee. Until which time there is nothing to stop someone being in the role as maternity cover. Your opinion of not being a contributor may not be the one that the employer adopts...

getmore4less

sangie595 wrote: »

With the exception of the two weeks (unpaid) compulsory maternity leave (six weeks for factory workers), maternity leave did not become universal until 1993. Off the top of my head, it was 1999 when the law on redundancy and maternity leave was enacted after case law found that simply making women redundant because they were on maternity leave was unlawful.

A years maternity leave entitlement was 2006.

maternity protection was statute 1999 there may be some statute or case law before that if 52 weeks maternity was 2006 then that makes the guess that protection came in when it was shorter and before the maternity became 52 weeks was correct.

getmore4less

it went up to 52 weeks 6th April 2003 with the 2002 amendment to the regulations

these are the notes for that change

The most significant changes are the extension of ordinary maternity leave from 18 to 26 weeks, and the extension of additional maternity leave so as to end 26 weeks from the end of ordinary maternity leave rather than 29 weeks after the week of childbirth (regulation 8(a) and (b)). An employee will qualify for additional maternity leave if she has been continuously employed for at least 26 weeks at the beginning of the 14th week before the expected week of childbirth (“e.w.c.”), rather than, as previously, at least a year at the beginning of the 11th week before the e.w.c. (regulation 6)

I read that to say that the previous was up to 29 weeks from child birth + any ordinary taken before childbirth
not sure how long that could have been at that time, I thought I saw 11 weeks before due date in the regs. so potentially 40 weeks max.