Employers are *****
- Thread starter jaws104
- Start date
Many many many people quit jobs because their job no longer fits into the lifestyle they want to live. Whether they are a woman who can't bear to leave their child for 8+ hours a day following a maternity period to a man who decides he would rather take a pay cut and work 5 minutes down the road.
The costs incurred are normally factored in to a business regarding the hiring and training, it can be a pain in the bum, but quitting a job and maternity leave are not mutually exclusive.
p.s. I don't know many woman who have quit their job once the mat leave is up anyway.
The costs incurred are normally factored in to a business regarding the hiring and training, it can be a pain in the bum, but quitting a job and maternity leave are not mutually exclusive.
p.s. I don't know many woman who have quit their job once the mat leave is up anyway.
err the fact she was made redundant whilst on mat leave and someone is doing her job perhaps with the same role, oh and maybe a witness statement from OP
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
His point is that nothing has happened yet.
Witness statement is hearsay, he's simply reporting what someone else said. Without any validated copies of the email there's no reason to believe the whole thing wasn't made up to get back at her employer for making her redundant legitimately.
Plus he'd now be on the chopping block for making that statement.
Last edited:
It doesn’t matter much to be honest. Employment tribunals can hear whatever evidence they please, and there are no technical rules about hearsay, though they will probably place less reliance on hearsay than on other direct evidence. Having both is advantageous. Having witness statements better still.
The fact that her job was replaced by another very similar job and the woman who is now doing that job is the same woman that covered the previous one whilst she was on maternity leave.
They would have to create an entirely new position and then actually advertise and interview for that position, the woman currently covering maternity leave would have to apply as would anyone else.
Also the company is legally obliged to find a suitable position for the woman on maternity leave and if there is none available then they would have to pay her redundancy etc...
However, if the new position created is clearly just an expansion of the original position then there is a clear case that she was forced out whilst on maternity leave unless she is offered the position herself first.
Any tribunal would expect the employer, not the employee to prove that they did not conspire to remove her from her position whilst she was on maternity. In this circumstance (going solely on the OP) they would get torn to shreds by an half competent employment specialist.
Ta, and yes as i understand it by law they either have to give her back her job or create a new position for her. But if they really want her gone, as was the impression i got from the mail, they will probably offer her something unatractive or uncompetitive
1 yr Maternity is quite a lot, especially for a small business (as fox has said) bigger companies can absorb it a little better but probably still have a big burden to bear. Thats not taking into account all the time of that parents have after the birth.
Maybe if she hadn't taken the full time off the employer would not have had time to realise that there are better employees out there.
Maybe if she hadn't taken the full time off the employer would not have had time to realise that there are better employees out there.
OP - Do nothing. I'd only tip off the preggers woman if they actually move against her. They'd have to be naive to try it, they should know better...so I expect they won't bother and you'll only cause friction (and get caught in the middle) by telling her.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 638
- Location
- London
While maternity leave seems it’s unfair it is needed.
Were living in a society where commonly women and in some areas men, are forced to decide between good careers/having babies. This doesn't leave much room for breeding. You are eventually left with the Jeremy Kyle educated folks who pop them out like there's no tomorrow... now long term, that will be bad especially for businesses.
Its part of doing business in this country and as such should be accounted for in the business plan/margins etc. Having these laws should in theory mean equal platform for all companies to compete in, but I can see how small businesses might suffer.
At the end of the day, for us to be competitive the better end of the UK gene pool needs to breed and as such these laws do help out somewhat.
Were living in a society where commonly women and in some areas men, are forced to decide between good careers/having babies. This doesn't leave much room for breeding. You are eventually left with the Jeremy Kyle educated folks who pop them out like there's no tomorrow... now long term, that will be bad especially for businesses.
Its part of doing business in this country and as such should be accounted for in the business plan/margins etc. Having these laws should in theory mean equal platform for all companies to compete in, but I can see how small businesses might suffer.
At the end of the day, for us to be competitive the better end of the UK gene pool needs to breed and as such these laws do help out somewhat.
Last edited:
Bigger companies can absorb a lot more than a few pregnant mothers.
I can see these arguments have a certain resonance of truth, but these businesses wouldn't be here in the first place if it weren't for childbirth so go figure.
Hmm, well the length is certainly optional.
It should not be to that persons detriment however.
Bigger/LBG companies can absorb a lot more than a few pregnant mothers.
I can see these arguments have a certain resonance of truth, but these businesses wouldn't be here in the first place if it weren't for childbirth so go figure.
Hmm, well the length is certainly optional.
It should not be to that persons detriment however.
How does 6 months maternity differ from 12 months to an employer, financially speaking?
I didn't realise that tribunals worked on guilty until proven innocent, but even so I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to setup some paltry interview process to make it seem above board. In which case you've just got a woman appearing to make something up to get back at her employer.