Love all the people on here giving opinions, you want to try running a business , with all the laws, covering a position for two years it’s a hell of a ask.As bob Munro says after two years they don’t have to give her , her old job back.
Love all the people on here giving opinions, you want to try running a business , with all the laws, covering a position for two years it’s a hell of a ask.As bob Munro says after two years they don’t have to give her , her old job back.
So someone deserves to be sacked or made redundant because they had children?
I agree it’s tough running a business and having to take all the laws into account. But they are there to stop employers do whatever they want. If your a genuine employer than those laws don’t worry you.
Love all the people on here giving opinions, you want to try running a business , with all the laws, covering a position for two years it’s a hell of a ask.As bob Munro says after two years they don’t have to give her , her old job back.
They never covered a position, they filled it.
Exactly. Seems like they made a mistake making the other person permanent. And got spooked (sorry, I know it is Halloween!) because she took took them to court about a different issue and won.
However, your missus should not suffer because of their mistake, however unusual it is that she has been away for for 2 lots of maternity leave.
Fortunately, it sounds like you have a great advisor to help.
Love all the people on here giving opinions, you want to try running a business , with all the laws, covering a position for two years it’s a hell of a ask.As bob Munro says after two years they don’t have to give her , her old job back.
So someone deserves to be sacked or made redundant because they had children?
I agree it’s tough running a business and having to take all the laws into account. But they are there to stop employers do whatever they want. If your a genuine employer than those laws don’t worry you.
Not saying that but after two years , you by law don’t have to be given your old job back.
Love all the people on here giving opinions, you want to try running a business , with all the laws, covering a position for two years it’s a hell of a ask.As bob Munro says after two years they don’t have to give her , her old job back.
So someone deserves to be sacked or made redundant because they had children?
I agree it’s tough running a business and having to take all the laws into account. But they are there to stop employers do whatever they want. If your a genuine employer than those laws don’t worry you.
Not saying that but after two years , you by law don’t have to be given your old job back.
You do if the position still exists and has been given to someone else, which is exactly the case here.
Love all the people on here giving opinions, you want to try running a business , with all the laws, covering a position for two years it’s a hell of a ask.As bob Munro says after two years they don’t have to give her , her old job back.
So someone deserves to be sacked or made redundant because they had children?
I agree it’s tough running a business and having to take all the laws into account. But they are there to stop employers do whatever they want. If your a genuine employer than those laws don’t worry you.
Not saying that but after two years , you by law don’t have to be given your old job back.
Why? Doesn't the very strong maternity leave process top that?
Love all the people on here giving opinions, you want to try running a business , with all the laws, covering a position for two years it’s a hell of a ask.As bob Munro says after two years they don’t have to give her , her old job back.
So someone deserves to be sacked or made redundant because they had children?
I agree it’s tough running a business and having to take all the laws into account. But they are there to stop employers do whatever they want. If your a genuine employer than those laws don’t worry you.
Not saying that but after two years , you by law don’t have to be given your old job back.
This is back to back maternity - so 2 x 52 week maternities. The law states that returning within 6 months ordinary maternity leave the woman has the right to return to the same role (if it still exists) and between 6 and 12 months with additional maternity leave to the same role or a similar role if it no longer exists.
Nowhere does it say you have to reapply for your previous role - that indicates it still exists so the returner must be given that role. In this case the employer is irrefutably breaking the law.
Yes it does cause huge disruption to an employer, especially in this situation with back to back maternities - but it is entirely reasonable to protect a woman in a situation that can only apply to women. To not do so is unacceptable sex discrimination and women have it hard enough as it is to have equality in the workplace.
Was just looking at some HR pages which made me think of this - any update?
Mrs T has been back working there for a week as joint deputy while HR decide what to do. However she's decided she no longer wants to work for the company and doesn't want our children going there so has asked for voluntary redundancy.
It's somewhat disappointing that they will "get away with it" in a way but at least at some cost. They will obviously have to pay out for her 12 years of employment and will lose out on fees for our two, plus her sister is planning on leaving and taking her daughter out.
Ironically the manager told her that since she's been back it's nice to have someone that can be left to it and relied upon. Their loss.
I can see what you mean by somewhat disappointing, but good if it works for you all. Their loss. not sure what redundancy she will get but hope it all works out for you.
Was just looking at some HR pages which made me think of this - any update?
Mrs T has been back working there for a week as joint deputy while HR decide what to do. However she's decided she no longer wants to work for the company and doesn't want our children going there so has asked for voluntary redundancy.
It's somewhat disappointing that they will "get away with it" in a way but at least at some cost. They will obviously have to pay out for her 12 years of employment and will lose out on fees for our two, plus her sister is planning on leaving and taking her daughter out.
Ironically the manager told her that since she's been back it's nice to have someone that can be left to it and relied upon. Their loss.
Don't close any doors on what might happen next. The employer's conduct seems to be arriving at an outcome where Mrs T loses her job - what the employer was after all along - this smells very strongly of constructive or even wrongful dismissal. Get some specific employment law advice. Terms like 'voluntary' redundancy don't deflect from the fact that the employer's conduct results in someone losing their job, through no fault of their own and apparently outwith the established legislation. Any suggestion from the employer that severance pay is dependent on Mrs T undertaking not to take any further action will be your big red flag that the employer knows it's on thin ice. Go carefully and best of luck.
Was just looking at some HR pages which made me think of this - any update?
Mrs T has been back working there for a week as joint deputy while HR decide what to do. However she's decided she no longer wants to work for the company and doesn't want our children going there so has asked for voluntary redundancy.
It's somewhat disappointing that they will "get away with it" in a way but at least at some cost. They will obviously have to pay out for her 12 years of employment and will lose out on fees for our two, plus her sister is planning on leaving and taking her daughter out.
Ironically the manager told her that since she's been back it's nice to have someone that can be left to it and relied upon. Their loss.
Don't close any doors on what might happen next. The employer's conduct seems to be arriving at an outcome where Mrs T loses her job - what the employer was after all along - this smells very strongly of constructive or even wrongful dismissal. Get some specific employment law advice. Terms like 'voluntary' redundancy don't deflect from the fact that the employer's conduct results in someone losing their job, through no fault of their own and apparently outwith the established legislation. Any suggestion from the employer that severance pay is dependent on Mrs T undertaking not to take any further action will be your big red flag that the employer knows it's on thin ice. Go carefully and best of luck.
Good luck with this @talal very unnecessarily stressful.
Surely the position should have been advertised as a fixed term for 12 months to cover maternity and then the contrac extended on the basis of a new maternity period.
Was just looking at some HR pages which made me think of this - any update?
Mrs T has been back working there for a week as joint deputy while HR decide what to do. However she's decided she no longer wants to work for the company and doesn't want our children going there so has asked for voluntary redundancy.
It's somewhat disappointing that they will "get away with it" in a way but at least at some cost. They will obviously have to pay out for her 12 years of employment and will lose out on fees for our two, plus her sister is planning on leaving and taking her daughter out.
Ironically the manager told her that since she's been back it's nice to have someone that can be left to it and relied upon. Their loss.
Don't close any doors on what might happen next. The employer's conduct seems to be arriving at an outcome where Mrs T loses her job - what the employer was after all along - this smells very strongly of constructive or even wrongful dismissal. Get some specific employment law advice. Terms like 'voluntary' redundancy don't deflect from the fact that the employer's conduct results in someone losing their job, through no fault of their own and apparently outwith the established legislation. Any suggestion from the employer that severance pay is dependent on Mrs T undertaking not to take any further action will be your big red flag that the employer knows it's on thin ice. Go carefully and best of luck.
If the employer wants to tie it up in a Settlement Agreement then negotiate for something north of statutory redundancy - perhaps even ask for it but preface the discussion with the phrase 'protected conversation' and 'without prejudice'. If they don't budge then all options are open to your wife to take it further - sign nothing but place on record that she feels she is being forced out and asking for redundancy was the only way she could think of to alleviate the stress of direct sex discrimination. Take the redundancy (without signing a settlement) and then raise a claim for Constructive Unfair Dismissal on the grounds of Direct Sex Discrimination. She would win (or more likely they would settle before a hearing).
As offered previously, happy to advise on a pro bono basis.
Was just looking at some HR pages which made me think of this - any update?
Mrs T has been back working there for a week as joint deputy while HR decide what to do. However she's decided she no longer wants to work for the company and doesn't want our children going there so has asked for voluntary redundancy.
It's somewhat disappointing that they will "get away with it" in a way but at least at some cost. They will obviously have to pay out for her 12 years of employment and will lose out on fees for our two, plus her sister is planning on leaving and taking her daughter out.
Ironically the manager told her that since she's been back it's nice to have someone that can be left to it and relied upon. Their loss.
Hope it all works out for the best for her, you and your children.
I was thinking that, instead of making a final decision, immediately, about what she wants to do, there's a good way she could spend some time away from work - while still getting some wages from them - while she makes a final decision. She could probably manage to take up to about twelve months off work, while she thinks it through.
It would require you to do something first, but she could end up with being able to stay away from work from another twelve months, or more...
Was just looking at some HR pages which made me think of this - any update?
Mrs T has been back working there for a week as joint deputy while HR decide what to do. However she's decided she no longer wants to work for the company and doesn't want our children going there so has asked for voluntary redundancy.
It's somewhat disappointing that they will "get away with it" in a way but at least at some cost. They will obviously have to pay out for her 12 years of employment and will lose out on fees for our two, plus her sister is planning on leaving and taking her daughter out.
Ironically the manager told her that since she's been back it's nice to have someone that can be left to it and relied upon. Their loss.
Hope it all works out for the best for her, you and your children.
I was thinking that, instead of making a final decision, immediately, about what she wants to do, there's a good way she could spend some time away from work - while still getting some wages from them - while she makes a final decision. She could probably manage to take up to about twelve months off work, while she thinks it through.
It would require you to do something first, but she could end up with being able to stay away from work from another twelve months, or more...
Don't, she wants number 3 already. Love my two to bits but they're enough for now!
Thanks for the advice once more and to Bob, expect I'll be in touch soon!
Was in a bit of a rush earlier and somehow neglected to include a fairly important part...
Mrs T made her mind up to leave the company after day one of being back there... A few days later she was told, verbally, that HR have made a decision and that she still has to reapply. Their story now is that the other deputy was never a replacement but was intended to work alongside Mrs T as joint deputy. Very shortly before Mrs T was due to return it was decided by the company that the nursery does not need a second deputy. How coincidental. Mrs T printed off the occupancy levels at the time a second deputy was supposedly added and it was in the 20's. In years prior when evidently only one deputy was necessary to do the job, occupancy levels were in the 40's. In other words no way did the nursery need a second deputy at that point. I mean it's laughable but that's what they're going with.
Just a quick update for anyone that might remember this, can't believe it's nearly 3 years since I started the thread! A settlement was recently reached at judicial mediation. Huge thanks to CL legend @bobmunro who helped every step of the way and represented Mrs T at prelims and the mediation.
Just a quick update for anyone that might remember this, can't believe it's nearly 3 years since I started the thread! A settlement was recently reached at judicial mediation. Huge thanks to CL legend @bobmunro who helped every step of the way and represented Mrs T at prelims and the mediation.
Comments
However, your missus should not suffer because of their mistake, however unusual it is that she has been away for for 2 lots of maternity leave.
Fortunately, it sounds like you have a great advisor to help.
Nowhere does it say you have to reapply for your previous role - that indicates it still exists so the returner must be given that role. In this case the employer is irrefutably breaking the law.
Yes it does cause huge disruption to an employer, especially in this situation with back to back maternities - but it is entirely reasonable to protect a woman in a situation that can only apply to women. To not do so is unacceptable sex discrimination and women have it hard enough as it is to have equality in the workplace.
It's somewhat disappointing that they will "get away with it" in a way but at least at some cost. They will obviously have to pay out for her 12 years of employment and will lose out on fees for our two, plus her sister is planning on leaving and taking her daughter out.
Ironically the manager told her that since she's been back it's nice to have someone that can be left to it and relied upon. Their loss.
The employer's conduct seems to be arriving at an outcome where Mrs T loses her job - what the employer was after all along - this smells very strongly of constructive or even wrongful dismissal. Get some specific employment law advice. Terms like 'voluntary' redundancy don't deflect from the fact that the employer's conduct results in someone losing their job, through no fault of their own and apparently outwith the established legislation. Any suggestion from the employer that severance pay is dependent on Mrs T undertaking not to take any further action will be your big red flag that the employer knows it's on thin ice.
Go carefully and best of luck.
Good luck and keep us posted!
Surely the position should have been advertised as a fixed term for 12 months to cover maternity and then the contrac extended on the basis of a new maternity period.
I was thinking that, instead of making a final decision, immediately, about what she wants to do, there's a good way she could spend some time away from work - while still getting some wages from them - while she makes a final decision. She could probably manage to take up to about twelve months off work, while she thinks it through.
It would require you to do something first, but she could end up with being able to stay away from work from another twelve months, or more...
Was in a bit of a rush earlier and somehow neglected to include a fairly important part...
Mrs T made her mind up to leave the company after day one of being back there... A few days later she was told, verbally, that HR have made a decision and that she still has to reapply. Their story now is that the other deputy was never a replacement but was intended to work alongside Mrs T as joint deputy. Very shortly before Mrs T was due to return it was decided by the company that the nursery does not need a second deputy. How coincidental.
Mrs T printed off the occupancy levels at the time a second deputy was supposedly added and it was in the 20's. In years prior when evidently only one deputy was necessary to do the job, occupancy levels were in the 40's. In other words no way did the nursery need a second deputy at that point.
I mean it's laughable but that's what they're going with.
A settlement was recently reached at judicial mediation. Huge thanks to CL legend @bobmunro who helped every step of the way and represented Mrs T at prelims and the mediation.
Nice one Bobby Boy.