Maternity rights

Something that came up in a conversation at work recently, it was brought up by a women,

The company has been undergoing rather major staffing cutbacks, and a large number of female middle managers have announced they are pregnant, the comment was they became untouchable, the moment they got placed on at risk registers they would then bring up the pregnancy and how that was the reason they were loosing there job.

Comments please.

Why should a woman who is pregnant be any safer from losing their job than any other. Redundancies are carried out on a points scoring basis. As long as the company has followed the correct procedure and weighted the points to get rid of the unproductive baby carriers there shouldnt be a problem.

I wouldnt employ a woman of child baring age anyhow. Sexist and unethical, yes. But a small business has enough to contend with.

Of course they can be made redundant – so long as the process is fair.

It is my understanding, having recently gone through this at home, that once they have their 25weeks certificate their position can be made redundant but a position has to be available for them to come back to.

The Sexist and unethical would be the first to go.

As long as the company has followed the correct procedure and weighted the points to get rid of the unproductive baby carriers there shouldnt be a problem.

Is entirely correct.

It is my understanding, having recently gone through this at home, that once they have their 25weeks certificate their position can be made redundant but a position has to be available for them to come back to.

Sounds incorrect to me – statutory maternity pay has to be paid as if the person is an employee at week 26 (or 25 weeks pregnant), they do not have to keep a position open. That could then be unfair on someone else who loses their job over the pregnant woman.

I think you are confusing things – after 25 weeks, the employer has to pay statutory maternity pay (which is 90%? claimed back from the state anyway). If the mother's job is made redundant before 25 weeks she will only get maternity allowance, which is claimed directly from the state.

From a father to 16 week old twins, husband to a woman whose job was made redundant at week 25…

(Although it was proved unfair and she got a cash settlement, got her job back and her boss sacked 😆 )

I think the comment was based on the fact that however fair the system can seem to be, the person facing redundancy then cries discrimination and off to tribunal you go… with all the costs and time implications.

on the pay thing, isn't there some clawback? if you don't return to work then you have to pay money back? or is that related to wages and part of the contract rather than a state benefit.

the comment was they became untouchable, the moment they got placed on at risk registers

IME – in practice, that's often the case

It may not be factually or legally correct but that's what happens

on the pay thing, isn't there some clawback? if you don't return to work then you have to pay money back?

If it is statutory then no, if they are paid more as a goodwill payment then possibly yes, dependant on the contract.

Cooment from my boss (Personnel manager of a large company) when I asked about this was that if all the pregnant ones stay, but are less qualified for their roles than non-pregnant workers who have been made redundant, there could still be grounds for an employment tribunal on the grounds of discrimination by the people who have lost their jobs. Unless the company can prove that they kept the people who matched the selection criteria best, there is grounds for an appeal, so the management have to be very careful how they frame the criteria if they know who they want to keep…

Yes – as stated above, the process has to be fair and transparent. In my wife's case, she was scored really badly to make her look the best option for redundancy. But when challenged, her boss couldn't quantify it – for example, she was scored badly for not having many clients on her books, whereas her colleague had lots of clients. The problem was – my wife had the two biggest clients (by a HUGE margin) and those clients had also asked that her colleague not work on their projects because he was no good. All this had already been noted in previous appraisals.

Basically, any fair process will stand up – a pregnant woman is no safer than anyone else – it's just that many businesses haven't got the first clue about how to handle the situation so simply chose to protect themselves from any possible case.

As a friend who works in HR said to my wife at the time – the first rule of making a pregnant woman's job redundant is don't make a pregnant woman's job redundant. It is just often not worth the risk.

A pregnant worker should be treated no differently to any other employee, however there is legislation that provides for employees on maternity leave in redundancy situaions.

Below is an extract from trustworth commentary of the law in this area (the Regs in question are The Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999).

"If the employee’s existing job becomes redundant while she is on maternity leave, the law affords her special protection. Reg 10 of the MPL Regulations provides that, if the employer has a suitable available vacancy (i.e. one that is suitable, appropriate and not substantially less favourable than the employee’s previous job – Reg 10(3)), he must offer it to the employee on maternity leave in preference to any
other employee who is similarly affected by the redundancy situation but who is not absent on maternity leave."

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the above provides an absolute 'get out of jail free' card, however employers would have to be very careful in seeking to dismiss an employee on grounds of redundancy during a maternity leave period.

pstokes writes the truth, and much better than I could have.

It seems a bit of a contradiction, but when I was union rep in a mass redundancy situation neither the union, the HR dept or the management really knew how to handle it.

In the end it was voluntaries all round (thanks to my skilful yet determined negotiation of course), but I think the HR dept would have erred on the side of caution and not made one of the pregnant women's roles redundant.

With the above, though, I would assume (as it is not clear) that if employee A (pregnant) and employee B (not pregnant) are equally at risk, the employer has to go through due process and score each employee on their ability to perform the job function well. Only if the scores are equal would they then have to offer the pregnant woman any suitable alternative position.

If there is a position/s in a pool of employees to be lost, the pregnant woman has no more rights to keep her job over another that is not pregnant if she is less suitable.

Also – the scoring has to be impartial and proven – ie, they cannot introduce a new scoring system devised to weigh against the pregnant woman in order to dismiss her as that would then be constructive dismissal. Again – personal experience 🙂

There were several here treated the same who were due to go on maternity or on maternity like my wife.

I think if your maternity leave was due to start in your notice period then you are still entitled to the money plus your redundancy

^^^^ correct 🙂

Littlest Hobo does your business supply stuff for the general community? Do you have female clients? If you didn't want inconvenience why did you set up on your own?

My wife was informed (informally) that she would be made redundant on her return to work from maternity leave- result was that she took maximum leave available, both paid and unpaid before returning. Even after maternity pay had stopped she continued to receive her company car allowance, and continued to accrue personal bonuses and profit related pay, as well as annual leave, and completed another full years service. I'm not sure whether continuation of these payments was as a result of company policy or industrial law

The government now has a substantial stake in that particular bank. 😀