Let go from job after returning from maternity leave

Liz1819

Hi guys. Just looking to see what other people think. I work as an accountant for a medium sized company. I have had two babies over the last 2 years. I was paid while on maternity leave with my first baby as was the norm in the company but the company refused to pay me while on maternity leave for my second baby. This was ok. I understood it's hard for the company to justify paying me. When I returned after maternity leave earlier this year, the person who had replaced me was kept on. I wasn't giving back any of my original accountancy work but was instead moved to warehouse/stock duties. I spoke to my manager numerous times asking him would I be getting any of my accountancy work back and he said he would come back to me. Then Covid 19 came about and 4 employees out of 30 have been laid off. I was laid off but my maternity replacement has been kept on.
I'm just looking for some opinions on this as I feel it's very unfair that I have been let go while my replacement has been kept on. Any advice appreciated. Thanks

radiotrickster

Citizens Information should be able to help you out. This is from their website.

“You are entitled to return to work to the same job with the same contract of employment. If it is not reasonably practicable for your employer to allow you to return to your job, then they must provide you with suitable alternative work. This new position should not be on terms substantially less favourable than those of your previous job.”

You might have a case against them if your new position was “substantially less favourable” than your old position. They have a phone number you can ring and they’re always helpful.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/leave_and_holidays/maternity_leave.html

JustAThought

You were kept on and given a job to return to and paid.No doubt the company did not want a break in the continuity of accounting and its integrity but fully honoured its responsibilities to you.Then an unprecedented catastrophic global pandemic broke out and there was a financial and infection control crisis and company restructuring and you were structured out.Fully legit and entirely defendable. Sign on, enjoy your two young babies and look for a new accountancy role after this is over.At least you wont be needing a childminder or facing down that dark labyrinth of infection risk and high risk baby contamination.

Wanderer19

Dylan87 wrote: »

Hi guys. Just looking to see what other people think. I work as an accountant for a medium sized company. I have had two babies over the last 2 years. I was paid while on maternity leave with my first baby as was the norm in the company but the company refused to pay me while on maternity leave for my second baby. This was ok. I understood it's hard for the company to justify paying me. When I returned after maternity leave earlier this year, the person who had replaced me was kept on. I wasn't giving back any of my original accountancy work but was instead moved to warehouse/stock duties. I spoke to my manager numerous times asking him would I be getting any of my accountancy work back and he said he would come back to me. Then Covid 19 came about and 4 employees out of 30 have been laid off. I was laid off but my maternity replacement has been kept on.
I'm just looking for some opinions on this as I feel it's very unfair that I have been let go while my replacement has been kept on. Any advice appreciated. Thanks

The info Radiotrickster gave is correct, but since you've now been let go you could claim unfair dismissal - (unfair selection) they have to have good reason for keeping your replacement on when you've been let go. It appears that they've used covid as a reason to get rid of you. I'd contact as solicitor for solid advice.
Good luck, let us know how you get on.

JustAThought

They could rightly argue that the OP cannot give the continuity of service and in depth accounts knowledge that their current replacement can.and that their business and accounting could be compromised because of her lack of grasp of current status -insights into client accounts etc. Incumbent has that perspective and insights.In the current climate and worldwide financial crisis she would be far better keeping her money for necessities and not wasting it on hungry solicitors. who would always be happy to have another income themselves -however nebulous. At least this way she will still be employable after the crisis and have a good verbal reference - people who sue rarely do. I doubt that her past 2 years to and from confirmation of dates worked would serve her much favours as a future bare minimum reference. They did it legally and by the book -I’d go gracefully and look to future prospects.

detoxkid

Id get hr advice if I was you. Check 'watch your back' on Instagram. I think if they have let some people go and not others they need to have a strong justification for their selection criteria.

AulWan

You were shafted. Get legal advice.

Wanderer19

JustAThought wrote: »

They could rightly argue that the OP cannot give the continuity of service and in depth accounts knowledge that their current replacement can.and that their business and accounting could be compromised because of her lack of grasp of current status -insights into client accounts etc. Incumbent has that perspective and insights.In the current climate and worldwide financial crisis she would be far better keeping her money for necessities and not wasting it on hungry solicitors. who would always be happy to have another income themselves -however nebulous. At least this way she will still be employable after the crisis and have a good verbal reference - people who sue rarely do. I doubt that her past 2 years to and from confirmation of dates worked would serve her much favours as a future bare minimum reference. They did it legally and by the book -I’d go gracefully and look to future prospects.

They can argue till they're blue in the face, doesn't mean they're right. You've no evidence they did anything 'by the book' they never gave her back her original position, but gave her a different job, working in a warehouse is not comparable to working as an accountant, then let her go. They don't appear to have followed any legal procedures at all - unless you're privy to more factual information than everyone else you have no idea of why they let her go.


As previously stated, the op needs legal advice, and from my personal experience, it's worth her while to pay for a consultation to see where she stands, if nothing else she is entitled to a redundancy payment.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/redundancy/redundancy.html#lea16f

Jim2007

Wanderer19 wrote: »

The info Radiotrickster gave is correct, but since you've now been let go you could claim unfair dismissal - (unfair selection) they have to have good reason for keeping your replacement on when you've been let go.

They are no longe the replacement though, that ended when the OP was given a new position, which is now redundant.

Liz1819

Thanks for all the feedback guys. I think I will contact citizens information just too see where I stand. And thanks JustAThought I am enjoying this extra time with my babies and will continue to do so for as long as I can but need to look at the bigger picture here. Thanks everybody!

Heres Johnny

Were you working as an accountant or working in accounts department?
Just strikes me that an accountant would earn more than almost any warehouse job I can think of except for a highly experienced specialist warehouse manager v maybe a very newly qualified accountant.
Either way its not a comparable job and I think you've been shafted here

lawred2

Are you a qualified accountant or were you working in an accounts department as an admin or something?

Liz1819

I was working as an accountant. Qualified CPA. The new role was "warehouse supervisor" as such. Stock control, checking what was coming in and going out.

Mrs OBumble

Dylan87 wrote: »

I was working as an accountant. Qualified CPA. The new role was "warehouse supervisor" as such. Stock control, checking what was coming in and going out.

So why did you accept that?

Heres Johnny

Dylan87 wrote: »

I was working as an accountant. Qualified CPA. The new role was "warehouse supervisor" as such. Stock control, checking what was coming in and going out.

I'm qualified CIMA and although I don't work in accounting anymore I work as general manager of a company, utilising my financial knowledge and working with my successor (ACCA qualified) to analyse info and make decisions. No way would I consider a warehouse supervisor role as a comparable job, unless someone actually wanted to be a warehouse supervisor in which case its OK.

But sounds like constructive dismissal right from the start, most accountants wouldn't make that change after studying and passing exams. Then coronavirus came along and they took their opportunity

Liz1819

I didn't accept it. I was not told about the change in positions until I returned to work. I spoke to management on my first day back and on 3 further occasions about the new position and I told them how I wasn't happy with the warehouse position. I told them that if they couldn't reinstate me to my old position that I would still like to be doing accounts be it in a different role to previously. They told me they would come back to me about it.

lawred2

Dylan87 wrote: »

I was working as an accountant. Qualified CPA. The new role was "warehouse supervisor" as such. Stock control, checking what was coming in and going out.

Sounds like you've a case against them but try and use something like flac rather than an expensive solicitor

zerosugarbuzz

Dylan87 wrote: »

Hi guys. Just looking to see what other people think. I work as an accountant for a medium sized company. I have had two babies over the last 2 years. I was paid while on maternity leave with my first baby as was the norm in the company but the company refused to pay me while on maternity leave for my second baby. This was ok. I understood it's hard for the company to justify paying me. When I returned after maternity leave earlier this year, the person who had replaced me was kept on. I wasn't giving back any of my original accountancy work but was instead moved to warehouse/stock duties. I spoke to my manager numerous times asking him would I be getting any of my accountancy work back and he said he would come back to me. Then Covid 19 came about and 4 employees out of 30 have been laid off. I was laid off but my maternity replacement has been kept on.
I'm just looking for some opinions on this as I feel it's very unfair that I have been let go while my replacement has been kept on. Any advice appreciated. Thanks

Sounds like unfair dismissal to me. Take legal advice as see this.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/tribunal-awards-woman-315-000-1.704910%3Fmode%3Damp

claregal1

Dylan87 wrote: »

Hi guys. Just looking to see what other people think. I work as an accountant for a medium sized company. I have had two babies over the last 2 years. I was paid while on maternity leave with my first baby as was the norm in the company but the company refused to pay me while on maternity leave for my second baby. This was ok. I understood it's hard for the company to justify paying me. When I returned after maternity leave earlier this year, the person who had replaced me was kept on. I wasn't giving back any of my original accountancy work but was instead moved to warehouse/stock duties. I spoke to my manager numerous times asking him would I be getting any of my accountancy work back and he said he would come back to me. Then Covid 19 came about and 4 employees out of 30 have been laid off. I was laid off but my maternity replacement has been kept on.
I'm just looking for some opinions on this as I feel it's very unfair that I have been let go while my replacement has been kept on. Any advice appreciated. Thanks

Hi - if you are on patron, there is an excellent forum called Watch your back Ireland . Denise is her name . You can book a consult with her through her Instagram page - she deals with a lot of unfair dismissals . if you don't want to do that , you can take a case to unfair dismissals. Your original role should have been re instated regardless when you returned from maternity leave . Also as they paid you whilst on maternity leave first time , you should have been paid on second leave as they had set a precendent with first baby . If uour role had changed , you should have got a new contract stating this . Good luck

Batgurl

JustAThought wrote: »

They could rightly argue that the OP cannot give the continuity of service and in depth accounts knowledge that their current replacement can.and that their business and accounting could be compromised because of her lack of grasp of current status -insights into client accounts etc. Incumbent has that perspective and insights.In the current climate and worldwide financial crisis she would be far better keeping her money for necessities and not wasting it on hungry solicitors. who would always be happy to have another income themselves -however nebulous. At least this way she will still be employable after the crisis and have a good verbal reference - people who sue rarely do. I doubt that her past 2 years to and from confirmation of dates worked would serve her much favours as a future bare minimum reference. They did it legally and by the book -I’d go gracefully and look to future prospects.

It’s opinions like this that are the reason countries need rights and protections for women who have babies.

Arguing “continuity of knowledge” is BS. If that was the case, any person just back from holidays/sick leave/maternity leave could be let go in the current circumstances.

And your message to not kick up a fuss “as it seems bad for your future” is one of the many subtle threats that crap managers and employers use to manipulate and coerce women into just going quietly. Sickens me.

Batgurl

Batgurl wrote: »

And your message to not kick up a fuss “as it seems bad for your future” is one of the many subtle threats that crap managers and employers use to manipulate and coerce women into just going quietly. Sickens me.

To be fair, consideration of how this would impact your future is not usually something considered by keyboard warriors, but it is something that should give anyone in this situation pause for thought.

Though the op may have a strong case under the UDA, she will also have to consider the impact on future job prospects..Having considered it, and discounted it, then full steam ahead to the WRC.

So please don’t criticise an employee, or anyone giving advice, for stopping to think about this. It is far less nauseating then someone playing the gender card inappropriately, men also have to consider future employment prospects when taking an unfair dismissal case.

The_Honeybadger

Not an employment law expert by any means OP but you have been treated appallingly IMO. Definitely do follow up and get legal advice

lawred2

JustAThought wrote: »

They could rightly argue that the OP cannot give the continuity of service and in depth accounts knowledge that their current replacement can.and that their business and accounting could be compromised because of her lack of grasp of current status -insights into client accounts etc. Incumbent has that perspective and insights.In the current climate and worldwide financial crisis she would be far better keeping her money for necessities and not wasting it on hungry solicitors. who would always be happy to have another income themselves -however nebulous. At least this way she will still be employable after the crisis and have a good verbal reference - people who sue rarely do. I doubt that her past 2 years to and from confirmation of dates worked would serve her much favours as a future bare minimum reference. They did it legally and by the book -I’d go gracefully and look to future prospects.

horseshjt

you wouldn't accept summary demotion so don't expect anyone else to do so

Batgurl

Dav010 wrote: »

To be fair, consideration of how this would impact your future is not usually something considered by keyboard warriors, but it is something that should give anyone in this situation pause for thought.

Though the op may have a strong case under the UDA, she will also have to consider the impact on future job prospects..Having considered it, and discounted it, then full steam ahead to the WRC.

So please don’t criticise an employee, or anyone giving advice, for stopping to think about this. It is far less nauseating then someone playing the gender card inappropriately, men also have to consider future employment prospects when taking an unfair dismissal case.

To be fair, consideration of how maternity leave would impact your future is not usually something considered by men, but it is something that should give everyone pause for thought.

It’s a documented fact from the gender pay gap data that women who have had children are disproportionately affected and this drives the gap even wider. And it’s because of attitudes like yours which force women to accept substandard treatment and insinuate that they won’t be believed if they are the victim of biased treatment.

As the saying goes: If you aren’t part of the solution...

billybonkers

absolutely get legal advice and do it today. Do not let it drag on. Sounds like an awful situation OP. Sorry

FitzElla

There are very strong protection in law for pregnant employees and what the company did to you OP was not allowed. You are entitled to return to the same job under the same contract as you had before, with terms and conditions that are as good as those you had before.

If it is not possible to return to your previous job you have to be offered a "suitable alternative" which carries terms and conditions that are as good as your original contract.

I would seek advise from the Workplace Relations Commission as on the face of it your company has not provided you the necessary protections as a pregnant employee. The fact you subsequently lost your job and your replacement was kept on makes it even worse.

Snow Garden

Liz1819 wrote: »

I was working as an accountant. Qualified CPA. The new role was "warehouse supervisor" as such. Stock control, checking what was coming in and going out.

Did they say this new role was being made redundant? Are there others still doing the warehouse supervisor role? Were you replaced in the warehouse role?

Wanderer19

Jim2007 wrote: »

They are no longe the replacement though, that ended when the OP was given a new position, which is now redundant.

Did you read the full post? The replacement has not been let go, the op has.

After acknowledging Radiotricksters post I had said it was unfair selection for redundancy.

Wanderer19

Heres Johnny wrote: »

I'm qualified CIMA and although I don't work in accounting anymore I work as general manager of a company, utilising my financial knowledge and working with my successor (ACCA qualified) to analyse info and make decisions. No way would I consider a warehouse supervisor role as a comparable job, unless someone actually wanted to be a warehouse supervisor in which case its OK.

But sounds like constructive dismissal right from the start, most accountants wouldn't make that change after studying and passing exams. Then coronavirus came along and they took their opportunity

Constructive Dismissal is when the employee leaves - but then claims they were forced to go. If she hadn't been let go because of Covid then she may have taken the steps necessary to go this route, but it can be a long process.


This isn't the situation here. For whatever reason the employer preferred the replacement, stuck the op into a job she didn't want then let her go at the the first chance they could, using covid as an excuse.

gallifreya

From what has been outlined by the OP I am shocked that a lot of posters including some in the HR field think this type of behaviour by employers is something to be put up in 2020. You were entitled to return to exactly your previous position and THAT position has not been affected by layoffs. The treatment you received on your return to work, is exactly what the Maternity Acts were designed to prevent.

I wholeheartedly agree that taking a claim should be given serious consideration, weighing up all possible ramifications including any possible harm to your accounting career. However, I would strongly recommend that you get advice from professionals and perhaps bear in mind, that a pregnancy related claim under the Equality Acts would be treated privately (names not published). Whether this makes a difference or not is for you, your family and your legal advisers to decide but best of luck and I am really sorry you were treated like this. PLEASE get advice.

Snow Garden

Wanderer19 wrote: »

Did you read the full post? The replacement has not been let go, the op has.

After acknowledging Radiotricksters post I had said it was unfair selection for redundancy.

I was not asking about the Accounting role. I know that replacement remains.

I am trying to understand the redundancy in the new (and unwanted) Warehouse role first.

Batgurl

Batgurl wrote: »

To be fair, consideration of how maternity leave would impact your future is not usually something considered by men, but it is something that should give everyone pause for thought.

It’s a documented fact from the gender pay gap data that women who have had children are disproportionately affected and this drives the gap even wider. And it’s because of attitudes like yours which force women to accept substandard treatment and insinuate that they won’t be believed if they are the victim of biased treatment.

As the saying goes: If you aren’t part of the solution...

Considering the effect of an unfair dismissals case on your future is not gender specific, no matter what way you want to dress it up. If we were discussing a man who had returned to work after illness and was treated similarly to the op, the advice on consideration of future prospects would be the same.

If the op wants to bring a case, then go for it, taking her account at face value, it does appear that she was discriminated against, and dismissed unfairly.

But, victory at what cost? The op, would be wise to at least, if only briefly, consider this. How easy/difficult is it going to be to get another job in the accountancy sector, either in an accountancy firm or company? How will the previous employer answer that loaded question “would you employ her again”?.

This applies to both female and male, leaving pregnancy aside in the ops case, the consideration is about a career. If the op believes it is in no way going to effect her career prospects, then I hope she takes them to the cleaners.

Batgurl, it’s important to look at the whole picture rather than focus narrowly on one aspect of it, otherwise the reaction to the current problem becomes less of a solution, and more of a long term problem.

Batgurl

Dav010 - I am looking at the bigger picture. I’m also talking about hiring managers who look at a persons work history, see “took a case for unfair dismissal following a pregnancy” and immediately think “trouble-maker” instead of asking themselves the question “why was a woman who just had a child laid off?”

This is also part of the problem. The general bias towards women with children and how they get treated as a result.

I’m not saying the OP should be a one-woman campaign for change, but she shouldn’t be afraid to speak her truth because she’s scared of how it will affect her future hiring potential. It shouldn’t affect her future hiring potential. And change needs to come from the ground up.

Cash_Q

OP I am going to PM you the name of an excellent HR specialist who can help you

Batgurl

Batgurl wrote: »

Dav010 - I am looking at the bigger picture. I’m also talking about hiring managers who look at a persons work history, see “took a case for unfair dismissal following a pregnancy” and immediately think “trouble-maker” instead of asking themselves the question “why was a woman who just had a child laid off?”

This is also part of the problem. The general bias towards women with children and how they get treated as a result.

I’m not saying the OP should be a one-woman campaign for change, but she shouldn’t be afraid to speak her truth because she’s scared of how it will affect her future hiring potential. It shouldn’t affect her future hiring potential. And change needs to come from the ground up.

That is not what I was posting about.

I am not looking at this specifically I’m terms of gender. You took umbrage with a poster advising the op to consider the impact on her career when taking a case under UDA. This is good advice. The case may in no way impact a career, but you should consider if it will before proceeding.

You just strapped on the big boots and went stomping around. This advice has nothing to do with gender.

Wanderer19

Snow Garden wrote: »

I was not asking about the Accounting role. I know that replacement remains.

I am trying to understand the redundancy in the new (and unwanted) Warehouse role first.

The op can argue she has been there longer than the replacement and therefore it's unfair selection.


When making redundancies the company should follow certain processes to ensure things are done properly. Most are done on a last in first out basis, but this can only be effective when talking the same/similar skill set, which the op, and her replacement have.

putting her in the warehouse was an attempt to make her leave, otherwise, if it really was a comparable role why not put the replacement there? The op asked for her role back, and the requests was ignored.

It's appalling the way the op has been treated, not get paid ML for her 2nd child may also be seen as a breach of contract, to return and find your role given to someone else, they 'find' another role for her, which she didn't want, they then let her go, using covid as an excuse.

The reality is there was no cause for redundancy, it's unfair dismissal.

Batgurl

Dav010 wrote: »

That is not what I was posting about.

I am not looking at this specifically I’m terms of gender. You took umbrage with a poster advising the op to consider the impact on her career when taking a case under UDA. This is good advice. The case may in no way impact a career, but you should consider if it will before proceeding.

You just strapped on the big boots and went stomping around. This advice has nothing to do with gender.

I *AM* looking at this in terms of gender; that’s the difference. Context is important. I don’t want to take the thread OT any further though.

OP-it’s my opinion that you were unfairly treated. The fact that you complained about your new role not being equal 3 times since returning is really important. I hope you have that documented, and if not, write down the times and dates of the discussions, who they were with and as many details of the conversation as possible. It will be important.

ForestFire

Do the WRC not take on cases like this and adjudicate independently without the need for Solicitors/lawyers etc? Do they help and support your claim, i.e. provide legal advice to you?

Or are people recommending getting legal advice, so as to get support for a dispute though the WRC?

https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/

daheff

JustAThought wrote: »

You were kept on and given a job to return to and paid.No doubt the company did not want a break in the continuity of accounting and its integrity but fully honoured its responsibilities to you.

thats just not correct.

"Returning to work
You are entitled to return to work to the same job with the same contract of employment. If it is not reasonably practicable for your employer to allow you to return to your job, then they must provide you with suitable alternative work. This new position should not be on terms substantially less favourable than those of your previous job. This is covered under Section 26 and Section 27 of the Maternity Protection Act 1994."

A role in a warehouse does not sound to be a suitable alternative to an accounting role.

daheff

gallifreya wrote: »

You were entitled to return to exactly your previous position and THAT position has not been affected by layoffs.

no you are not.


but absolutely the OP has been badly, and probably, illegally treated.


OP- i'd bet the replacement is being paid less than you...so thats why they are happy to keep the replacement.

also - if this is the way the company treat people you are better off out of there.

FishOnABike

Is the warehouse just running itself now or is there a supervisor / acting supervisor?

TheChizler

Wanderer19 wrote: »

Constructive Dismissal is when the employee leaves - but then claims they were forced to go. If she hadn't been let go because of Covid then she may have taken the steps necessary to go this route, but it can be a long process.


This isn't the situation here. For whatever reason the employer preferred the replacement, stuck the op into a job she didn't want then let her go at the the first chance they could, using covid as an excuse.

I think this is the bit that sounds like what they were planning was constructive dismissal, that they put her in a job she didn't want and were hoping she'd leave. It ended up working out differently cause of the virus but that may well have been the plan.

Batgurl

Batgurl wrote: »

I *AM* looking at this in terms of gender; that’s the difference. Context is important. I don’t want to take the thread OT any further though..

That is a blinkered approach, considering this only in terms of gender could be counterproductive.

I don’t know anything about jobs in the accountancy sector, how many there are, how competitive the job market is, how much word-of-mouth counts in gaining employment. These are considerations all accountants may have to bare in mind, only someone working in the sector might know this.

This is not taking the thread off line, it is a consideration for any thread where unfair dismissal is discussed.

Again, I am not in any way advocating not taking a case, I am advocating that the op consider all implications and outcomes, both in the short and long term. In some sectors, legal actions can impact job prospects, that is a reality for both sexes.

Liz1819

Thanks everybody for the advice and help. To answer a few questions my replacement is on a lesser salary than myself €10,000 less to be exact.
To the best of my knowledge the warehouse position I was in is been done by one of the lads who worked in the warehouse already packing the orders. I am not 100% sure of this though.
I will seek legal advice as recommended by many of you then decide what to do and in the meantime I plan to enjoy this time with my little girls!

bucketybuck

Batgurl wrote: »

Dav010 - I am looking at the bigger picture. I’m also talking about hiring managers who look at a persons work history, see “took a case for unfair dismissal following a pregnancy” and immediately think “trouble-maker” instead of asking themselves the question “why was a woman who just had a child laid off?”

Its a nice thought but believe me, no manager is ever looking past the word "troublemaker" to try and figure out whether it is fair or not. It has nothing to do with gender, everything to do with avoiding anything that even smells like drama.

Our staff retention is high so its not like I'm only looking for staff I can bully or who will shut up and do what they are told. But if anything, anything at all about an application suggests drama further down the road then I am simply walking away, there are plenty more fish in the sea.

We take great pains here to avoid HR litigation. That means treating staff well, following procedures when we have to, and binning the CV of somebody if we find out they brought a previous employer to court. Is that fair? Fair has nothing to do with it.

GreeBo

I think some people are forgetting that a role is made redundant, not a person.

So which role was made redundant OP?
Were you informed that your role was at risk and then subsequently made redundant or did your manager just rock up one day and say "you are gone"?

What process was followed? If your role was put at risk first, which role? Accountant or Warehouse Supervisor? Were others in either role also notified that they were at risk?


My reading of your OP is that they wanted you to leave and then COVID-19 came along and, in their eyes, solved a problem for them.

gallifreya

daheff wrote: »

no you are not..

Under the circumstances the OP outlined she most certainly was entitled to return to her role and the employer prevented it. No discussions had taken place prior. The OP returned to what should have been her job but only then discovered that her Mat Leave replacement was to remain in situ while she was summarily relocated under objection and without any reason given by the employer. This new warehouse position was not agreed to, is not appropriate, is not contracted and has now been laid off.

Where even are the reasonably practicable circumstances that the employer will rely on to circumvent the Act's protection for the OP to return to the same role?

It doesn't matter to the OP that the warehouse role was laid off, HER role has not and that's the fight - IF she wishes to have it.

Calhoun

Dav010 wrote: »

Considering the effect of an unfair dismissals case on your future is not gender specific, no matter what way you want to dress it up. If we were discussing a man who had returned to work after illness and was treated similarly to the op, the advice on consideration of future prospects would be the same.

If the op wants to bring a case, then go for it, taking her account at face value, it does appear that she was discriminated against, and dismissed unfairly.

But, victory at what cost? The op, would be wise to at least, if only briefly, consider this. How easy/difficult is it going to be to get another job in the accountancy sector, either in an accountancy firm or company? How will the previous employer answer that loaded question “would you employ her again”?.

This applies to both female and male, leaving pregnancy aside in the ops case, the consideration is about a career. If the op believes it is in no way going to effect her career prospects, then I hope she takes them to the cleaners.

Batgurl, it’s important to look at the whole picture rather than focus narrowly on one aspect of it, otherwise the reaction to the current problem becomes less of a solution, and more of a long term problem.

Very dangerous and stupid line of thinking, if the circumstances were sketchy and the OP did something questionable then you might have a point.

Your essentially arguing for someone to settle down as people don't like those who follow the law/rock the boat.

I was under the impression most firms in 2020 wouldn't have tried a stunt like this in the first place I was wrong and the full rigor of the law should be brought against them.

TheBoyConor

Consider why they might have kept the other person on in the accounting role and reassigned you? Could it be that the replacement was actually better at the job than you were?

Calhoun

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Consider why they might have kept the other person on in the accounting role and reassigned you? Could it be that the replacement was actually better at the job than you were?

Doesn't matter, the likelihood is they were cheaper to hire depending on the term of service the OP did.

It's still no reason to break the law and comments like this and all the other **** used as a sly dig to have a go at woman are quite sickening.

lawred2

Calhoun wrote: »

Very dangerous and stupid line of thinking, if the circumstances were sketchy and the OP did something questionable then you might have a point.

Your essentially arguing for someone to settle down as people don't like those who follow the law/rock the boat.

I was under the impression most firms in 2020 wouldn't have tried a stunt like this in the first place I was wrong and the full rigor of the law should be brought against them.

sleeveens of this ilk have always existed...

they would not for second think of accepting similar treatment themselves of course... accepting poor treatment is for other people to do