It's twice as long.
Employers are *****
- Thread starter jaws104
- Start date
It's twice as long.
They can't, they must offer her any suitable position in the company (they needn't create one ) but the terms&conditions must be the same or better as the job she no longer has. The biggest problem for the company is proving that she isn't qualified for the position the woman covering maternity has.
Basically If you are made redundant during maternity leave you have the right to be offered any suitable alternative vacancy before it is offered to
any other employees. This special protection is provided by Reg. 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999. You do not have to go for interview or assessment procedures if you are on maternity leave and there is a suitable alternative vacancy.
So she would have to have been offered the job that the woman covering maternity has, it would be difficult for the company to prove that she was not suitable just by qualifications as accountancy actually needs none as you can be qualified by experience, and depending on how the new position is expanded (frankly you can't really expand it too far otherwise the workload would be too great) it would be hard to prove she was not suitable for the newly created position.
Last edited:
Depends upon how specialised the persons role is. Remember a big business is made up of a lot of small teams and so the financial impact may be small but the actual effect may not be.
Having worked in a finance dept seeing the cost of temps or contractors, I can say quite a lot.
Last edited:
No one is being judged guilty, tribunal don't work like that. Each side will make their case and the tribunal will make a judgement. The employee would have to put forward her case and the employer would have to rebut it, and vice versa.
The employer can do as they wish, but any decent employment specialist will turn the position inside out and upside down and if there is any hint of impropriety (obviously in this case there is) then the employer will find themselves in a sticky situation. Especially if they have other suitable positions they could have offered or if they subsequently employ someone to assist the woman in the newly created position which is effectively two full time positions joined together to remove this woman.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
This may help her assess her rights.
http://www.maternityaction.org.uk/s...erfiles/pregnancyandmaternityrightsatwork.pdf
http://www.maternityaction.org.uk/s...erfiles/pregnancyandmaternityrightsatwork.pdf
If I were the Director of that company then I would not be attempting this while she is on maternity, this is what I would do.
Leave her job as is, create an Accountant Managers position with a salary equal to the current position and employ the woman currently covering maternity when the woman returns from maternity.
Wait until the woman has returned and after 4-5 months make the position redundant, pay her redundancy and move the workload to the account manager with the requisite pay increase.
All it has cost is the extra salary for a few months and in fact it would give the new woman time to readjust and prepare to absorb both positions anyway.
Messing with women on maternity is a legal minefield and tribunals almost always side with the employee in these case because in the vast majority of them the employee has been removed because of the pregnancy or similar circumstances to the OP.
Leave her job as is, create an Accountant Managers position with a salary equal to the current position and employ the woman currently covering maternity when the woman returns from maternity.
Wait until the woman has returned and after 4-5 months make the position redundant, pay her redundancy and move the workload to the account manager with the requisite pay increase.
All it has cost is the extra salary for a few months and in fact it would give the new woman time to readjust and prepare to absorb both positions anyway.
Messing with women on maternity is a legal minefield and tribunals almost always side with the employee in these case because in the vast majority of them the employee has been removed because of the pregnancy or similar circumstances to the OP.
Where my Mrs used to work were **** for Maternity leave. They are an american company and basically every single time a women went off with maternity leave they re-shuffled and made redundant.
This happened every time without fail in my mrs department.
When my mrs got pregnant we already knew she wouldn't be going back full time and they wouldn't accomodate her part time. So she was going to have to leave.
Luckily for us knowing the game, we played it. Made out my wife was going to go back full time and they paid her off. They made her role redundant, made her sign a piece of paper to say she wouldn't sue them or persue the matter and she walked away with 5 figures from a job she was going to quit anyway.
It was a **** attitude that they had to working mothers but not one we were going to fight when my mrs wanted to work part time.
This happened every time without fail in my mrs department.
When my mrs got pregnant we already knew she wouldn't be going back full time and they wouldn't accomodate her part time. So she was going to have to leave.
Luckily for us knowing the game, we played it. Made out my wife was going to go back full time and they paid her off. They made her role redundant, made her sign a piece of paper to say she wouldn't sue them or persue the matter and she walked away with 5 figures from a job she was going to quit anyway.
It was a **** attitude that they had to working mothers but not one we were going to fight when my mrs wanted to work part time.
There should be more balance. I completely agree with maternity leave, especially as cost of living is much higher and generally a household requires two salaries.
If maternity is used it should be on the condition that the employee works at least 1 year (or something) after they return. This will stop the babies and resignations etc.
As for financials. If a smaller organization cannot afford the 10-20k for someone to go on leave what chance to they have long term? In the grand scheme of things it is not "that" much money.
In this instance the employee has hit bad luck as the organization has found someone better to do the job. Perhaps the organization could change some roles?
If maternity is used it should be on the condition that the employee works at least 1 year (or something) after they return. This will stop the babies and resignations etc.
As for financials. If a smaller organization cannot afford the 10-20k for someone to go on leave what chance to they have long term? In the grand scheme of things it is not "that" much money.
In this instance the employee has hit bad luck as the organization has found someone better to do the job. Perhaps the organization could change some roles?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,705
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I'm going to stick up for Fox here and how much damage it can do to a company.
Let's take the NHS and 80% of the staff are women.
A lot of these women go on to have babies which means that we the taxpayer have to pay double the wages for one job.
A woman gets her full pay for 6 months and then half pay after 6 months up to 12 months while somebody is now being paid full wage to do the job.
I believe smaller businesses still have to pay the same amount and that's why a lot don't hire women or hire women that have gone past child rearing age.
Deleted member 651465
Deleted member 651465
They'll have a hard job getting rid of the girl whose pregnant. One sniff that she's being replaced and it's hello "sexual discrimination".
For the record, I believe men don't get enough time off and women get way too much. It should be 3 months a piece. 9 months off when in reality, you get settled in to a groove after the first 3 is sickening.
Women who go back to work and have another baby straight away, should be struck off. The pay goes down for maternity, but you could essentially keep getting pregnant and be getting paid for a job you barely show up to. Happened in my last place of work, a woman was off for her maternity, came back and 2 months later was pregnant again :facepalm:
For the record, I believe men don't get enough time off and women get way too much. It should be 3 months a piece. 9 months off when in reality, you get settled in to a groove after the first 3 is sickening.
Women who go back to work and have another baby straight away, should be struck off. The pay goes down for maternity, but you could essentially keep getting pregnant and be getting paid for a job you barely show up to. Happened in my last place of work, a woman was off for her maternity, came back and 2 months later was pregnant again :facepalm:
Might not have been planned, should she be forced to have an abortion to keep her job? That's a pretty heartless idea. What next? Execute children at birth if they are disabled as they'll be unlikely to pay their way in life. Let morals slip and it's not long before we're in the gutter, I'm proud that the UK takes such good care of most of it's citizens, shame we're not managing too well with older folks.
Figures aren't correct dmpoole, pay drops much faster than that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 11,117
- Location
- West Yorkshire / Market Bosworth
Just read this thread...shock horror as not everything single aspect of life is planned.
This.
My wife is on maternity leave at the moment. She is going back full time in April. I don't think some of the posters on this thread realise how vital maternity leave is to middle income familys. Without it only the rich and those on benefits would be able to afford to have children.