MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
My wife has just been called in by her boss to be told that her position is being made redundant...
She is 19 weeks pregnant and has just had 3 weeks sick (officially sanctioned by her doctor) due to exhaustion. On going back in today she has been told that her job is 'at risk' after they carried out a selection process of the three posiitons of which hers is one.
They have offered her a part time job on less money (PRO RATA) than her position as they said 'it might be helpful whilst you are pregnant to do less hours anyway'. So I ask - obviously they are within their rights to make the position redundant and have claimed they chose her job not because of any issues surrounding the pregnancy, but to say what they have about offering her another job on less hours and less PRO RATA pay - does this not smack of using it as a reason to choose her job for the axe?
To be fair, the other job would be ideal when she does return to work in the future, but if she accepted it it would mean getting less pay now (which we could do with).
Any help greatly appreciated.
Best bet is the Citizens Advice Bureau they will have a duty solicitor who will be able to give you real advice and guidance.
What you really need are several major problems coming along at once, to take your mind off things! I can't help with this, but good luck getting everything sorted out.
Yeah - we certainly have had the 'several major problems'. I think we have had enough to last us, and our twins', lifetimes...
My sister manages a branch of the CAB back up north and she is snowed under with similar situations, like your man above said speak to your local branch and get some advice from those guys. They deal with it day in day out and know what they are talking about.
Sorry, no better advice than CAB already suggested. Sympathy tho and for the several others on here that seem to be having a rough time. A stressful pregnancy can't be a good thing. I would suggest focusing on the upside of the part time job to return to but am afraid that would come over pretty glib.
Our office admin girl got made redundant yesterday out of the blue. Very upsetting.
But the question remnains - can they say [b]'it might be helpful whilst you are pregnant to do less hours anyway'.[/b] and then claim her job wasn't chosen because of her pregnancy?
It will depend on whether the part time job is considered as "a suitable alternative" to the current position. If it is she will hold continuous employment and keep any benefits of long term service.
Alternatively she could be made redundant and then reemployed. In this case you loose continuous employment rights but should gain a redundancy payout (if applicable).
I'm not sure you can imply anything untoward from 'it might be helpful whilst you are pregnant to do less hours anyway'. Someone might say this to express empathy.
[i]can they say 'it might be helpful whilst you are pregnant to do less hours anyway'. and then claim her job wasn't chosen because of her pregnancy? [/i]
Depends on how you read it. Sounds to be that they're making the post redundant and just trying to make it sound a bit more positive.
Blimey Mastiles... have you taken a wee on an Indian Burial ground or something? If for whatever reason we were to get caught in an electrical storm don't stand near me!
Were you planning on shorter working hours anyway?
IMHO don't get bogged down in the rights and wrongs of them saying [i]'it might be helpful whilst you are pregnant to do less hours anyway'[/i].
If her working part time is going to be your preferred option when she returns to work then grab the chance now - it will be one less thing to worry about when they arrive!
I might be talking complete b0ll0x, but they may actually think they are honestly trying to help by offering her reduced hours.
[i]But the question remnains - can they say 'it might be helpful whilst you are pregnant to do less hours anyway'. and then claim her job wasn't chosen because of her pregnancy?[/i]
Yep they can say that, it doesn't indicate that is was a factor in the decision process.
My wife is an HR person and I've just read her your original post: her answer follows...
-------------------------------------------
If she turns down the offer of reduced hours, she may be seen to be refusing a 'reasonable, suitable alternative' to redundancy and may therefore lose any right to redundancy pay.
-------------------------------------------
Sorry you guys are having such a shiite time. Hope it all gets better for you soon.
Tell me about it! 🙁
Just spoken to the CAB and they seem very clear that her employers are on very sticky ground by doing what hey have done.
But I still maintain - they seem to have conciously made a decision based on her pregnancy as they have decided (without my wife's consent) that perhaps she would be better off on lss hours because of it.
presuming that someone has to be made redundant in the company, then they will have covered their backs and have a long list of reasons why its your wifes job.
It would be naieve to think they didnt conidder her pregnancy, but if theyr starpped for cash then having to pay materity leave and make someone redundant would leave 1 person doing 3 peoples jobs.
They might be being generous with the part time offer, thinking they'r avoiding making a person redundant who will struggle most to find work in the imediate future.
Tribunal time then, but don't bank on winning.
Tribunals are shiite and I really woudn't recommend going there as loose cannons don't even come into it, from personal experience.
maybe worth a chat with ACAS?
Good comment, thisisnotaspoon
OK, so there are a few things here:
1. role redundancy. Her role is allegedly no longer required. It would be good for her to get them to explain why that is - it needs to be done objectively. Is there anyone else doing the same role? If so, presumably they are in the consultation as well
2. On any redundancy, there is a consultation process required, and there is a requirement on the employer to mitigate the redundancy (usually done by offering alternative positions).
3. She is pregnant, and someone rather crassly suggested she might like to do less hours anyway. The employer would probably argue that this is simply as part of their mitigation.
4. She's pregnant, albeit still at work, so they need to be careful about how they approach this. There is no automatic discrimination for being pregnant, but there other forms of discrimination (e.g. sex discrimination - she couldn't be pregnant if she was a man), that may arise.
I suspect in relatiy their thinking went along the lines of "We need to make redundancies. She's going to be off on maternity soon anyway. She'll probably come back part time, anyway. Why don't we try to sut through and get everyone where we think they'll need to be."
Now, this may be fine in the longer run, but the issue is maternity pay. Less pay now is less pay then.
Ourman - that is pretty much where we are at with our thinking. We lose out from now, rather than lose out from when she decides she might want to reduce her hours later.
The CAB were quite sure it was clear sex disrimination.
they have good grounds for offering less hours, following a three week absence - following medical advice or not.
If there is a vacancy for another post which involves working less hours then the company should seek to fill that from the employees whose roles are being made redundant.
The employer shouldn't tell those employees they'll have to take a pay cut - and this is the key point that you need legal advice on.
I think she's in a good bargaining position - and she should try to hold out for less hours on the same pro rata.
[i]The CAB were quite sure it was clear sex disrimination. [/i]
Unfortuntely that holds as much weight as saying a bloke down the pub thinks it's sex discrimination.
Why is that good grounds? She was off with a doctor's note and it was due to her pregnancy - and they are not allowed to take pregnancy related issues into consideration when making their decision.
and she should try to hold out for less hours on the same pro rata.
That is the sort of result we were thinking we would be holding out for.
Unfortuntely that holds as much weight as saying a bloke down the pub thinks it's sex discrimination.
So most of the posts suggest I speak to CAB, then when I do I am told their advice means nothing.
The standard of posts on here is getting rubbish.
😉
Unlucky and sorry to hear that seems to be the way many people jobs are going.
I read there offer as a genuine offer of help and worded in such away to say look this is the best we can do. Has the others been offered anything?
I'd take up the offer and look elsewhere for a job and agree to me it's them offering her a job that if turned down they can say well we offered the best we could.
Has the others been offered anything?
The others have kept their jobs and weren't even told they were at risk - they just told my wife that they had made the decision thta it was her job 'at risk'
I do accept that the offer they have made seems good on the face of it, and it is certainly the sort of thing she would have been looking to do on her return, but it is the short-term reduction in pay that causes the problem.
they have good grounds for offering less hours, following a three week absence - following medical advice or not.
No they don't.
In my (limited) experience as a union rep, HR people are very scared of dealing with maternity/redundancy cases because there's such a mess of conflicting duties and rights involved.
Professional legal advice is essential, even if it be from a solicitor at the CAB - then take this to the company and demand same pro rata for reduced hours.
The others have kept their jobs and weren't even told they were at risk - they just told my wife that they had made the decision thta it was her job 'at risk'
Is she the only one who does that job at the company?
And another thing...
The position they offered my wife - they made that one redundant just last December so if the woman who did that job was to find out...
Is she the only one who does that job at the company?
No - she is one of three account managers. They haven't even been told their jobs were at risk - just my wife.
No - she is one of three account managers. They haven't even been told their jobs were at risk - just my wife.
Are they ceasing business on the accounts she manages or will the slack be taken up by the other two people?
They lost two big projects with one client she manages, the remainder will be taken up by her colleagues.
The 'funny' thing is, one of her colleagues has been the subject to disciplinary action before and almost lost his job last autumn but hung on somehow - yet his job wasn't the one to go.
But then, he isn't pregnant...
I am going through a similar situation with my work( no I am not pregnant)
Unfortunately CAB were unable to help, in fact gave me pretty duff advice,they did suggest ringing ACAS who were very helpfull and gave me spot on information, I got their helpline number off their website, it does take a while to get through, as you can imagine at the moment.
Best of luck with your situation.
They lost two big projects with one client she manages, the remainder will be taken up by her colleagues.
I'm a bit rusty, but from what you say I'm pretty confident they haven't followed the required procedures for redundancy.
Companies are supposed to identify the positions at risk (all three account managers in this case), then notify the staff and do a "consultation", employees get scored against the jobs and then somebody is selected for redundancy.
That's regardless of whether anybody is on maternity. Your wife has additional rights to protect her from her job disappearing while she's off having a baby.
Once you've established if and how wrong they really have done things, and told them about it, they should be only too grateful to give her what you're after.
Is it a small firm and so likely to be ignorant of the rules involved?
If her position was the one where clients were lost it is conceivable that it is only that position which is considered at risk.If all positions are identical and there are no other considerations they would need to be clear on the selection procedure used to determine it is your wife.
In any case at this stage you need to be clear with them on the criteria, selection process and make sure alternative options have been put to them through the consultation process you are engaged in.
If it goes ahead after all of that you still have the right to appeal.
Interesting you don't make much comment on the big projects lost. Might be worth developing more of a balanced perspective on the situation IMO
"Companies are supposed to identify the positions at risk (all three account managers in this case), then notify the staff and do a "consultation", employees get scored against the jobs and then somebody is selected for redundancy."
Ditto - unless they could show that your wife's role was fundamentally tied into the two projects (ie specialist knowledge, different skills, markets, etc.) that were lost or a key change in the company's strategic direction, they cannot only consider your wife's role for redundancy - they have to consider the other two as well.
Your wife can legally ask to see the scoring (assuming that it wasn't only her considered) of herself against the company's criteria too.
(we're going through the redundancy proces too - as a manager I've been briefed on what is and isn't allowed so I hope I am right!)
Mastiles - you do need to speak to a specialist employment lawyer. This is clearly more complicated than the forum can manage.
Your wife needs to understand why she has been singled out and the other account managers have not been identified as being "at risk". This could lend weight to the suggestion that she is being dsicriminated against.
Frankly, redundancies are handled badly everywhere. It was c*cked up where I work: one of the UK's largest law firms.
Hiya! Can I say join a union?
It is potentially a tricky situation. On he face of it it would seem unfair / discriminatory. I doubt part time would be considered suitable alternative employment.
Get real advice from a solicitor who knows about this stuff.
I would be looking for a negotiated settlement - especially if she likes the job and would like to be part time post baby. Approach the negotiation from the point of view of intending to go to tribunal as you believe the redundancy is unfair. However indicate you are prepared to negotiate on the basis of an enhanced redundancy package and guaranteed hours> A nice lump of cash could be useful and fighting a claim is a lot of hassle>
for once, tj speaks sense!
[i]but it is the short-term reduction in pay that causes the problem[/i]
I think you'll find that with two kids on the way, it's not going to be a very short term that you'll feel a reduction in pay. I estimate at least 18 years 😉
Good luck.
18! With uni, etc, I suggest more than that 🙂
Many thanks - there is some clear help showing through here. My wife has no special skills - she just manages corporate travel events - client want to take its employees abroad for a conference, she plans it all. Unfortunately one of the clients is a large bank so it is consolidating its outgoings. The other two account managers do the same job just as she could do theirs.
A large part of it at the moment is that she does feel like she is being pushed out- there certainly has been no 'consultation process' - just a meeting this morning telling her it is her job going.
Next question - they are 'offering' the lesser package starting next week - so that means an immediate drop in salary. Surely she should be getting some kind of redundancy package/compensation not just suddenly take a drop in salary?
The person who suggested joining a union gave great advice, to anyone in employment. They can represent employees in internal procedures, and sort you out with proper legal advice if needed.
If youre wife isn't a union member, take a look at your household insurance policy, which may cover legal expenses.
If all 3 jobs are identical then the first stage should be advising all 3 that at least one of the positions is at risk and I would expect them to look for volunteers. Failing that you need to establish the selection criteria and look at the scoring. If that is satisfactory and she has come out lowest then your wife's position subject to completing the consultation process would/could then be declared redundant. She will have the option of accepting a redundancy package(which won't be much) or an alternative position.
If the job is a lesser package she can choose to accept it or take the redundancy package.
She has the right of appeal if not happy with any of the above and it will be revisited.
If she is clearly more experienced/capable than the other 2 and the selection process is not clear then she may have a right to claim unfair dismissal based on discrimination(through being pregnant)
But follow all of the above first
Mike - yes, that seems about what I understood to be the process.
She has been in the job 3.5 years and gets regular praise from her clients. A colleague has been in his job longer but was nearly sacked last year because no clients would work with him (so they moved him out of direct client contact for a while). When my wife told them about the pregnancy they said at the time that it had saved his job because they daren't get rid of him now but were about to (very professional company aren't they?)
The third person is relatively new and much less experienced than my wife but he seems okay - just doesn't have the proven record my wife has.
How many people work at her firm?
If it's over 50 there are some other regulations & disclosure requirements that must be adhered to by her employer
At her office (they trade as a different company name) only about 6, but the parent company employs 100s...
From what you've said about them, is your wife sure she wants to carry on working there? They sound a shower of S***s to me!
Well they are a shower and she hates it - she only stuck it out so long becaue we were planning on babies (then she could look at her options later)but money is money is money and we need it more than ever LOL!
Personally, I would just accept the reduced hours now and be done with it. If it's a small company then you're unlikely to be able to do that much about it, and it'll be a massive headache to prove what you actually want to, plus you keep the goodwill for when your wife returns to work. Right now some money coming in is better than none, and given that corporate entertaining is pretty much dead in the water I wouldn't be the one drawing attention to myself as not agreeing with the bosses right now.
There are probably a few things that have been done correctly and incorrectly on both sides, but sometimes you need to just play the politics game regardless of whether you believe it's right or not.
I know it's not what you want to hear, but it's my opinion.
So my wife should suffer because she should be happy to have something? I don't really think that is fair is it?
If I were you two I wouldn't be asking on here, I'd be asking an employment laywer.
Mastiles - I really can't stress this enough. She needs to speak to a specialist employment lawyer.
This sounds distinctly fishy.
Remember, a redundancy is automatically unfair dismissal where the reason for selection for redundancy is based on pregnancy.
Increasingly, I suspect your wife is being done, mastiles.
I have some info - email me at ourmainthenorth AT googlemail.com if you want me to send it through.
No, she shouldn't suffer right now, but on the basis of keeping an income and potentially beneficial hours on her return rather than potentially a statutory minimum redundancy payout that you would then need to contest it might be worth it. Up to you though, as others have said, get a lawyer that knows their beans involved rather than relying on the Internet barrack room lawyers.
So your wife needs to see and understand the selection criteria and scoring
(You really don't want to get too legal on this yet)
Follow the procedure-make sure you understand what is happening, make notes and get things confirmed in writing
If you do this you will be in a better position to seek redress if it comes to it
Your wife could also outline to them what she would be prepared to consider as an alternative to redundancy and subject to the outcome of the consultation process
They are potentially beneficial hours yes, but on a lesser pro rata salary - and she isn't getting a choice in the matter, just had it landed on her in a very unprofessional manner.
My wife is going to speak to her HR friend tonight and get the low down - what happens next will depend on her comments as well I think.
When all is said and done, they seem to have made a decision without involving the staff and simply selected her with the only reason being (apart from the scoring which they haven't shown her any evidence of) being that they thought she would prefer it because she is pregnant.
Is either of you good at a tough negotiation? They appear to have mucked up - trying to do the right thing by everyone but infact singling out a pregnant women for redundancy.
Least hassle option might be to negotiate. Enhanced redundancy package plus mat pay and so on. The employer might go for it to save the hassle of a tribunal. You want many thousands to be worth while tho - maybe 4 months salary for redundancy and another 6 to forgo mat pay and any other claims - lets say a years salary.
This approach has worked for me.
Ourman - tried emailing you (yes I did replace the 'at' with @) but it bounced - can you email what you have to m.danford@mixd.co.uk
Cheers
D'oh. misspelled my own email address.
Document's on its way.
Mastiles - echo what others have said about a lawyer and some advice for your wife would be to write as much down as she can, minuting meetings with boss etc. Good luck, stress you don't need.
You really ought to speak to someone who knows the law and procedure. A friend of hers in HR isn't necessarily clued up (though it would be good if she is). Others here have outlined some of the questions raised by the dubious manner in which your other half's redundancy/offer appears to have been decided and tabled.
If she doesn't like the job (you said "she hates it") then why the hell would she want to stay there? FFS there's more to life than working all the hours in the day for a bunch of jerks. She'll have a full time job soon enough anyway! You'll find out that sprogs don't eat, clothe, toilet train and educate themselves properly without parental supervision until they're at least 25 years old.
Regarding fairness and your own situation, well life isn't fair. It can be pretty cr@p. But, you know, people manage. Sometimes a kick in the teeth like this leads you to do something you wouldn't have done otherwise, which later turns out to be not so bad. All clouds have silver linings.
I'd still consult at length with someone who knows their employment law.
As an employer i'd have to say that of course they took her pregnancy into account and a 3 week sick leave is quite a hard thing to cover. I know, I know how unfair and terrible of me. The worlds against you. But if they are struggling and she then takes 3 weeks off you can;t expect them to not actually consider that now could you ? Anyway, reads to me they have assessed her as being a risk as in she will go on maternity leave, they ned to reduce costs and have offered an option. I'd say that was reaosnably fair. But of course you need the cash so the worst case scenario is you go bakc, they go through the process properly and she is made redundant (lets be realistic here i've never seen one change) and she gets no PT position. Nose off cut spite to. Rearrange. Congratulations on your twins, best of luck. If it was me i would biff the person with the most sick leave because that costs me $ and in these times I can;t afford to carry people who are high risk - doing this puts the whole company at risk. And no, you don;t want to work for me as I am a ****.
face was missing from my rearrange. As was a spellcheck. Sorry. Must try harder.
NZCol talks sense. If my wife was 19 weeks pregnant with twins, I'd be looking for the lowest stress option for her.
Mastiles, were you not the bloke who posted something last year about IVF and the postcode lottery? And we had lots of disagreements about getting IVF on the NHS?
Well all that nonsense aside I see your wife obviously managed to get pregnant, so I just thought I'd say "I'm genuinely very pleased for you mate". Hope it all goes well.
Personally, unless you absolutely totally need the money, I'd just take the lower hours. Stress is something you don't need in pregnancy. Wasn't it you that was struggling with the IVF for ages? If so, I'd be more worried about the Mrs being relaxed than anything else, and I can't imagine an employment tribunal is gonna be good for that. But if you are desperate for the cash then you might have to negotiate some more 🙁
Mastiles - first of all sympathy, this just happened to us but whilst on maternity leave. Got lawyer involved which helped leverage up a claim (no offer of alternative employment as in your case). To cut a long story short - it boiled down to what was said rather than what appeared in writing (her boss lied on record and would clearly continue to do so which would have meant one word against another at tribunal).
What I would say, and apologies if someone else has already suggested this (I didn't read all the posts) is that you should check your household insurance to see if you are covered for legal costs. We would have been but you would need to be 'reasonably sure' that you have a case in law before they would agree to stump up for a tribunal.
It might not get you the resolution that you wanted but it would be one less thing to be stressed about - losing £10k + in legal fees is not a nice prospect.
To those that have asked - yes it was us who were strugglingwith IVF last year - we didn't get it on the NHS as expected but funded our own course out of our own pockets and got pregnant first time around with twins 🙂
Regarding stress and pregnancy - unfortunately (or fortunately) my wife is strong-minded and strong-willed. She is prepared to challenge the decision as she knows it was an unfair one both in the way it was handled (due process and all that) and clearly discriminatory because of the way they reached their decision. They have (since I first posted) demanded she gives them a decision on whether she wants to take the other PT job on Friday - just 4 days after being told of the redundancy. They haven't even told her what redundancy payment she would get if she chose not to accept! So on top of unfair dismissal and sexual discrimination you could potentially add constructive dismissal through their aggressive approach with the demand of a decision so quickly (before she can seek proper advice).
We have spoken to CaB and ACAS as well as talking with our HR friend and the employment lawyer in her department (she is a big time HR professional, not just some bimbo playing at it in a small company) and everyone says they have tripped up in so many ways that they have put their head right in the noose.
Still at this stage we do want a fair resolution - we aren't just gonna run to a tribunal to try to get ££££££££££s - but at the same time we would expect that she will get the same money she would have got to carry her through the final stages of her pregnancy and impending maternity leave - then she will be free to consider her options whn she is ready to return to work.
After this has all settled down we are gonna hide under a rock and hope no more bad luck befalls us (after also losing my dad last month unexpectedly then having the builders working on an extension at our house flooding the whole place two weeks ago).
It sounds as if your wife is getin done over by these F***.
Sorry to hear about this in times of credit crunch..what can anyone say..
Join a union. They helped me out loads a times with superb backup and advice. They have specialists in that field..and for a few bucks a month its well worth it.
This year the unions will rise and fight for us mere mortals and we might even win .
Good luck whatever you do..and dont take no s from her employers.
If they have mentioned the pregnancy then your wife has a case for unfair dismissal and should appeal. She will be on full pay during the appeal process. It will cost the company a lot of money.
if she was last in they can make her redundant without doing the whole comparison palarver.
talk to a proper solicitor quick sharp. get them to write to the company setting out the actual law as known by someone qualified. this will buy you time to consider and get further advice.
This may sound very harsh but if i was employing someone i wouldnt consider a lady who i thought would be looking at starting a family.
I have every symathy with Mastiles and his situation, however i believe employers, especially small employers should be protected from this. How about the government covering the wages rather than the company. IMO the way things are the government on the one hand tries to make companies have a social concience whilst on the other hand not offering any assistance.
I know its ilegal to discriminate but considering the current climate its time to realise that everything isnt alsways a bed of roses
Van Halen - the 'Last in' rule is utter and complete total unmitigated rubbish - no-one can be discriminated against on that basis and any employer trying that one on would be guaranteed being found guilty of unfair dismissal. Anyone that thinks they can is living in the 70s with Gene Hunt. Besides, she wasn't 'last in' anyway!
And Hobo - I understand what you say (I run my own small company), but a business cannot make the decision to employ a female then discriminate against her because she is pregnant (in fact as you know, they cannot chose not to employ a female on that basis as it is sexual discrimination). It has even been said by her boss on more than one occassion 'whatever you do, don't get pregnant'.
just 4 days after being told of the redundancy
Isn't there a mandatory 1 month consultation period with redundancies?
Course, I'm not being of much help since you've already consulted professionals and all 🙂
Congrats on the pregnancy btw, I felt bad for you talking about it when we found out we were expecting. When're they due?
They are due on June 29th, but likely to be planned in earlier which is the norm with twins aparently.
Yes there is a consultation period - I don't think it has to be one month but it has to be fair. She goes in tomorrow to discuss with them further.
Totally agree Mastiles. The way you worded it is exactly my sentiments "but a business cannot make the decision to employ a female then discriminate against her because she is pregnant". However, I wouldnt let my company get into that position even if a woman was the best person for the job. Unless she were a middle aged woman with 3 kids and no intention for more i wouldnt consider a woman for a job. Sexist, Most definately. Looking after the business imo.
The point being - whether or not you choose to employ a female or not, if someone was to find out they were not offered a job purely because they were female, then you would be wide open for a sex discrimination case. I am not saying whether it is right or wrong, just stating the facts. I know I would 'secretly' consider such things if I was employing.
In fact if you were to simply ask, at interview, whether the female was planning on getting married/planning on having children etc, you could find yourself in hot water. You have to be very, VERY careful.