Let go from job after returning from maternity leave

Dav010

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

Dav010

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.

Dav010

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

Batgurl

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?

It doesn’t matter if the person looked like Brad Pitt, had the brain of Stephen Hawking and the personality of The Rock, the law is clear. A woman’s job is protected under the Maternity Protection Act and she has the right to return to it after maternity leave (save in exceptional circumstances, with proper communication and a suitable alternative offered).

Dav010

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.

I absolutely agree with you, maternity leave should not have been a consideration for the employer, the op should have returned to her job and should not have been dismissed based on absence due to pregnancy.

But again, that was not what my posts are about.

It would be far more stupid not to consider any long term employment/career implications of a legal case. The op’s solicitor would be remiss not to advise the op of this when discussing the case.

This has nothing to do with the ops actions being “questionable”, from what has been posted, there is no question over her actions. The employer appears to have acted appallingly and deserves any penalty applied. I am not in any way advising the op to “settle down”, if you see that in any of my posts, feel free to quote it.

What I do advise the op to at least give some consideration to, is the effect of a legal action on future employment. There may well be none, and after consideration, the op goes full steam ahead.

But on the other hand, as another poster alluded to, some companies will not hire anyone that has a history of legal action against a past employer. You can argue over the morality and fairness of that, but that will not get you the job.

lawred2

Dav010 wrote: »

I absolutely agree with you, maternity leave should not have been a consideration for the employer, the op should have returned to her job and should not have been dismissed based on absence due to pregnancy.

But again, that was not what my posts are about.

It would be far more stupid not to consider any long term employment/career implications of a legal case. The op’s solicitor would be remiss not to advise the op of this when discussing the case.

This has nothing to do with the ops actions being “questionable”, from what has been posted, there is no question over her actions. The employer appears to have acted appallingly and deserves any penalty applied. I am not in any way advising the op to “settle down”, if you see that in any of my posts, feel free to quote it.

What I do advise the op to at least give some consideration to, is the effect of a legal action on future employment. There may well be none, and after consideration, the op goes full steam ahead.

But on the other hand, as another poster alluded to, some companies will not hire anyone that has a history of legal action against a past employer. You can argue over the morality and fairness of that, but that will not get you the job.

just ridiculous

OP pay no heed to this

Calhoun

Dav010 wrote: »

I absolutely agree with you, maternity leave should not have been a consideration for the employer, the op should have returned to her job and should not have been dismissed based on absence due to pregnancy.

But again, that was not what my posts are about.

It would be far more stupid not to consider any long term employment/career implications of a legal case. The op’s solicitor would be remiss not to advise the op of this when discussing the case.

This has nothing to do with the ops actions being “questionable”, from what has been posted, there is no question over her actions. The employer appears to have acted appallingly and deserves any penalty applied. I am not in any way advising the op to “settle down”, if you see that in any of my posts, feel free to quote it.

What I do advise the op to at least give some consideration to, is the effect of a legal action on future employment. There may well be none, and after consideration, the op goes full steam ahead.

But on the other hand, as another poster alluded to, some companies will not hire anyone that has a history of legal action against a past employer. You can argue over the morality and fairness of that, but that will not get you the job.

It's scare mongering, and like it or not your opinion could be the difference between the OP or someone else not following up on the law.

I get where your coming from in a way but we are talking about some very well defined laws. Like if the OP went to the press over this she could shine a spotlight hotter than the sun on the business in question. Most recent companies in 2020 respect the equality laws we have in place and it should not be a negative to future employment.

Dav010

Calhoun wrote: »

It's scare mongering, and like it or not your opinion could be the difference between the OP or someone else not following up on the law.

I get where your coming from in a way but we are talking about some very well defined laws. Like if the OP went to the press over this she could shine a spotlight hotter than the sun on the business in question. Most recent companies in 2020 respect the equality laws we have in place and it should not be a negative to future employment.

Fair enough.

Two accountants apply for the same job, one has glowing references from a previous employer, the other has a legal case against a previous employer. Why take the risk?

You honestly think media spotlight on the op would improve employment chances? I would think any publicity would have the opposite effect.

That isn’t scaremongering, it is a reality which needs to be at least considered, and then disregarded if you feel it does not matter.

SozBbz

Dav010 wrote: »

Fair enough.

Two accountants apply for the same job, one has glowing references from a previous employer, the other has a legal case against a previous employer. Why take the risk?

You honestly think media spotlight on the op would improve employment chances? I would think any publicity would have the opposite effect.

That isn’t scaremongering, it is a reality which needs to be at least considered, and then disregarded if you feel it does not matter.

So people should be afraid to stand up for themselves?

The OPs employer has behaved despicably. If they thought covering maternity payments, wait until they see how expensive this little missadventure will cost them. That a womans job is protected during maternity leave is such a basic employment law principle. Shifting a qualified accountant to a warehouse supervisor is just ridiculous and the timing is so blatent. Covid may have stepped in here so that technically they dismissed her rather than her leaving and claiming constructive dismissal, but I think any court can see whats gone on here.

If they've any brains, they will still give the OP a factually correct reference. Most companies only say Person X worked here in this role from Y to Z. If they tried to deny her that, she could go after them yet again.

Dav010

SozBbz wrote: »

So people should be afraid to stand up for themselves?

If they've any brains, they will still give the OP a factually correct reference. Most companies only say Person X worked here in this role from Y to Z. If they tried to deny her that, she could go after them yet again.

Can you please show me any post where I have said that people/op should not stand up for themselves, or any post where I have said the op shouldn’t take/hasn’t a case for unfair dismissal.

You are correct, employers tend now to only confirm start/finish dates and job title. But it would be naive to think that this is the only communication that occurs between past and prospective employers. Former employers, quite rightly fair giving a negative reference, but that most loaded of all questions is asked “would you employ her again?”. Also, professional sectors like accounting can be small, particularly on a local level.

Again, for those that think I am against the op or favour the employer, I am neither, like all on this thread, I believe the employer to have acted badly and the op is justified in feeling aggrieved.

Diziet

OP, you need legal advice. It is unclear why the company did not pay you on the second leave period, and it sounds like they demoted you when you returned. This is not OK. Letting you go looks like unfair selection. Please talk to an employment solicitor who will give you proper legal advice.
There are strong protections for pregnant women in law, and for good reason. Best of luck.

SozBbz

Dav010 wrote: »

Can you please show me any post where I have said that people/op should not stand up for themselves, or any post where I have said the op shouldn’t take/hasn’t a case for unfair dismissal.

You are correct, employers tend now to only confirm start/finish dates and job title. But it would be naive to think that this is the only communication that occurs between past and prospective employers. Former employers, quite rightly fair giving a negative reference, but that most loaded of all questions is asked “would you employ her again?”. Also, professional sectors like accounting can be small, particularly on a local level.

Again, for those that think I am against the op or favour the employer, I am neither, like all on this thread, I believe the employer to have acted badly and the op is justified in feeling aggrieved.

Literally in all your previous posts where you're repeatedly warning the OP about the perceived reputational damage of taking a case. What else is advice like that trying infer?

Also, in your scenario the employer would only withhold a reference upon the OP taking a case, and as I said they'd be stupid to do so. If she's already taken a case against them, what would stop her doing so again if they tried to block her getting other employment. It would be in their best interests for her to land well in a new role elsewhere.

Borzoi

Dav010 wrote: »

Fair enough.

Two accountants apply for the same job, one has glowing references from a previous employer, the other has a legal case against a previous employer. Why take the risk?

As anyone with any actual experience will tell you, the reference will be part of any settlement. Very few cases go to the WRC, most are settled with confidential agreements.

OP - go talk to an employment law specialist. The cost of an initial consult is minimal.