Let go from job after returning from maternity leave

Dav010

SozBbz wrote: »

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.

Where did I say there would be reputational damage? Please quote where I said that.

You understand that there is no requirement to give a reference at all?

Answering a question of whether you would employ someone again is not blocking employment.

lawred2

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.

It's the central theme of your posts. How can you claim that your contributions have any other purpose than to discourage the OP from standing up for herself?

SozBbz

Dav010 wrote: »

Where did I say there would be reputational damage? Please quote where I said that.

You understand that there is no requirement to give a reference at all?

Answering a question of whether you would employ someone again is not blocking employment.

Here for a start;

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 is another doozey;

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.

This is directly relating to the OPs professional reputation;

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”?.

Dav010

lawred2 wrote: »

It's the central theme of your posts. How can you claim that your contributions have any other purpose than to discourage the OP from standing up for herself?

My contribution is, and always has been, consider everything before proceeding. No doubt the op’s solicitor will advise the same.

Snow Garden

Wanderer19 wrote: »

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.

I know all that and a lot more than you think. I asked 2 simple questions of the OP, she replied despite your interjections.

Snow Garden

Liz1819 wrote: »

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.

How did your manager or HR 'word' the redundancy for the 'lesser' Warehouse position? How did they explain it verbally or in writing? Were there selection criteria for the layoffs/redundancy?

I was laid off

Was it termed a lay off or a redundancy?

So many questions really but I think you have multiple cases here and your employer is in big trouble.

Did your contract change when you took the new warehouse role? Did any other terms and conditions change? How was it handled/communicated? I do find it quite strange that you accepted the new warehouse role. What were the terms of the maternity pay (welfare top-ups etc) and how did it change for the 2nd child? Did you have any negative performance reviews before or after the maternity leave?

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.

Is this in writing? Email etc?

You will need to remember and write down these details while they are fresh in your head. Keep any correspondence you have on it and create a timeline.

TheBoyConor

Batgurl wrote: »

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).

All men you have mentioned there. What if it wasn't a man who took the job? What if it was a woman who took the job? What if she had the looks of Jessica Alba, the brains of Marie Curie and the personality of Amy Schumer? Would you be as adrophobic then?

SozBbz

TheBoyConor wrote: »

All men you have mentioned there. What if it wasn't a man who took the job? What if it was a woman who took the job? What if she had the looks of Jessica Alba, the brains of Marie Curie and the personality of Amy Schumer? Would you be as adrophobic then?

Could you leave nonsense made up words like adrophobic in MGTOW Reddits or similar?

Regardless - Brad Pitt/Jassica Alba, it doesnt matter. A pregnant woman can't lose her job or be effectivly demoted upon return from maternity leave. The quality or otherwise of the replacement is irrelevant.

Wanderer19

lawred2 wrote: »

just ridiculous

OP pay no heed to this

A well worded letter from a solicitor may be enough for compensation and a good reference, if she has to go it's better to have money in the bank than without. But she has been treated disgracefully.

Wanderer19

In response to Snow Garden post #66

You quoted me in #31, stating you didn't understand how it was redundancy, I responded in #36 - how did I interject on the questions you asked the op?

skallywag

An employer clearly needs to legally provide you with a job when you return from mat leave, but I am not sure whether they are obliged to give you the same role or not on return? (assuming no difference in salary of course).

skallywag

bucketybuck wrote: »

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.

Can only echo this sentiment. My company have a reputation of treating their employees extremely well and in general we have very happy employees. That said, there is no way that someone with a history of suing an employer would get within a donkey's roar of being hired, the application process be as good as dead as soon as this fact were to become known.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is seriously naive.

Batgurl

skallywag wrote: »

An employer clearly needs to legally provide you with a job when you return from mat leave, but I am not sure whether they are obliged to give you the same role or not on return? (assuming no difference in salary of course).

They are obliged to provide you with the same job that is referenced in your contract. The law is clear on this. Its been in place since 1994 (Maternity Protection Act).

It’s actually quite sad to see the number of people who are ignorant to the rights of women 26 years later. And it’s sad that biases still exist with some ignorant people and employers.

irelandrover

Batgurl wrote: »

They are obliged to provide you with the same job that is referenced in your contract. The law is clear on this. Its been in place since 1994 (Maternity Protection Act).

It’s actually quite sad to see the number of people who are ignorant to the rights of women 26 years later. And it’s sad that biases still exist with some ignorant people and employers.

Lots of people are ignorant of lots of laws that don't affect them. Why would i ever need to know maternity leave laws if my partner wasn't pregnant or i was responsible for employees?

skallywag

Batgurl wrote: »

They are obliged to provide you with the same job that is referenced in your contract.

That is clear, but it can very often be the case that the ins and outs of my day to day work is not accurately described in my job contract. E.g. consider the case that a lady is employed as an accountant, and that is the role called out in the contract. She does a great job and finds herself playing a lead role in some very interesting projects. On coming back from her mat leave she finds that the new person filling that role while she was away has also played a blinder.

What is the situation then? If her employer still actually gives her accountancy tasks, albeit they are boring her to tears, are they still then on a proper legal footing? Or can she insist that she get her exact same role back?

I know the OP's situation may be different, but I think it is still relevant, at least to those interested in reasonable discussion.

Diziet

skallywag wrote: »

Can only echo this sentiment. My company have a reputation of treating their employees extremely well and in general we have very happy employees. That said, there is no way that someone with a history of suing an employer would get within a donkey's roar of being hired, the application process be as good as dead as soon as this fact were to become known.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is seriously naive.

Realistically, what will 99% end up happening is a settlement and glowing reference. Employers do not particularly want to be taken to court, either.

Sadly the end result of 'don't rock the boat' is very very detrimental to women discriminated against for pregnancy reasons, and this is a vicious circle.

lawred2

irelandrover wrote: »

Lots of people are ignorant of lots of laws that don't affect them. Why would i ever need to know maternity leave laws if my partner wasn't pregnant or i was responsible for employees?

Employers kinda should be though.

Also if you're ignorant of the laws of the land then maybe offering advice on same is inappropriate at best and downright arrogant at worst.

Batgurl

skallywag wrote: »

That is clear, but it can very often be the case that the ins and outs of my day to day work is not accurately described in my job contract. E.g. consider the case that a lady is employed as an accountant, and that is the role called out in the contract. She does a great job and finds herself playing a lead role in some very interesting projects. On coming back from her mat leave she finds that the new person filling that role while she was away has also played a blinder.

What is the situation then? If her employer still actually gives her accountancy tasks, albeit they are boring her to tears, are they still then on a proper legal footing? Or can she insist that she get her exact same role back?

I know the OP's situation may be different, but I think it is still relevant, at least to those interested in reasonable discussion.

People within teams get moved off the good accounts/projects all the time. That’s something that managers handle on a case-by-case basis (usually referred to as favouritism by the employees who don’t get the good ones). And if this were the case, when redundancies roll round, members of the same team would be still likely be let go in a “last in/first out” policy.

However the OP specifically moved from accountant to warehouse supervisor and the role of warehouse supervisor was made redundant. So it’s a moot point.

skallywag

Batgurl wrote: »

However the OP specifically moved from accountant to warehouse supervisor and the role of warehouse supervisor was made redundant. So it’s a moot point.

The OP also specifically asked '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'.

I believe that my point is somewhat relevant to that.

Snow Garden

Batgurl wrote: »

However the OP specifically moved from accountant to warehouse supervisor and the role of warehouse supervisor was made redundant. So it’s a moot point.

I don't think that is clear yet. She said...

the warehouse position I was in is been done by one of the lads who worked in the warehouse already packing the orders

skallywag

Snow Garden wrote: »

I don't think that is clear yet. She said...

This also stands out to me, it is nowhere mentioned that the role itself was made redundant, which must stand in favour for the OP's argument.