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.
Make sure she has a witness and writes everything down at the next meeting
"How about the government covering the wages rather than the company"
I assume that you would also support an increase in the tax paid by companies to cover this additional burden that you want to place on the taxpayer?
Tandem - yes she is going to be asking for someone to be present to take impartial notes. 🙂
Gonefishin, yes i would. I think it would make smaller business's more competetive and so benefit the economy.
Anyhoos - when someone goes on maternity, they get 90% of salary - paid by the business but claimed back from the Government so it already happens....
Mastiles - don't ask - insist or assume. Psychologically you need to put them on the back foot. Efficient and obvious note taking is good.
Noted - my wife is going to be taking a very softly softly approach at this stage though - just asking the questions she wants to know answers to, hoping they say something on record that could be used against them - then when they come back to her with the answers (ie, what scoring was used, has the same system been used before, why there wasn't a proper course of consultation followed etc) she will consider how best to approach the next stage.
The crazy thing is, by the time this is all sorted, she will be in her 21st week - so after her notice period is up she will be on 25 weeks anyway and entitled to the 90% of present salary - so she would be plainly daft to decide too quickly (and probably is exactly the same reason why her employers are pushing her to accept the lower salary before she enters the 25 week period - which is another reason why it seems clear they have considered her pregnancy when making their decision).
I'm not pregnant but i have had extensive surgery followed by a long recovery period over which time my lab couldn't cope and had to employ someone else. My contract would have been up for renewal if i wasn't in hospital at the time. I've since had an interview with the same company for a different post and didn't get the job on the grounds that i was recovering from surgery and wasn't able to lift heavy objects. I've had several interviews since then but nobody wants to employ me because in about 8-12 months time i'll be having more surgery. They haven't said this is the case but it's becoming obvious - one place said they were employing someone who lived closer even though i mentioned in the interview that i was all set up and ready to move if i got the job.
times are hard at the moment and her company will want someone who's primary focus now and in the future will be the company. If i were your wife i'd count herself lucky that she's still being offered work. maybe her being pregnant has just tipped the balance in favour of her not being made redundant.... just a thought.
mastilles,
we made 4 people redundant recently we were advised first in first out (fir specific positions not the firm in general) backed up by various paperwork was an option by our HR consultant.
i feel for your situation and wish you the best but you really need to speak to a solicitor, and tell the firm you are doing so, if you feel there is a discrimination case.
if your wife is already signed off though exhaustion and not yet 20wks then maybe its for the best she works less. it will only get harder for her.
I would say you were risking lots doing that - length of employemnt shouldn't be a consideration. If all employees were identical on all other scores and that was the only variable then fair enough, but otherwise I would have said an unfair dismissal case could be brought. I could be wrong, but that is what I understand from the various things I have recently read.