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.

Dav010

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.