Redundancy - potential maternity discrimination in scoring

[ShadowStone]

We are having redundancies at work. HR have produced a selection scoring matrix that we are being asked to agree to.

This matrix is to be completed by line managers, referring to latest appraisals.

My latest appraisal was a week after I finished maternity leave, so my line manager couldn't review my performance properly .

I e-mailed HR about this and they just said that they would consult with the employee redundancy reps about it.

I think that if I am given bad scores in the categories which refer back to the appraisal (rather than a neutral score) because I hadn't been back long enough for my performance over the year to be assessed, it could count as maternity discrimination.
Am I right?

[flowery]

Why on earth did you have an appraisal a week after returning from mat leave, how ridiculous! Unless you only took a very short time off there would surely not have been enough of a chunk of time to judge your performance?

Did you consider the rating you got at your appraisal to be unfair or inaccurate and if so did you raise it at the time?

[TywysogesGymraeg]

IMO, it's all a fix anyay, and they already know who they want to make redundant. When I was made redundant, our scoring system was out of 20. The rest of the team scorred 19/20. I scored 18.5/20. I was the newest in the team, though had been with the company elswhere for ages.

If it's a big company, HR will have it sussed - they know what they can and can't get away with legally, and I'm not convinced it's worth arguing.

I think that if you didn't object to your performance appraisal at the time, or the fact that it took place at all, you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

Being made redundant sucks, but is often the catalyst to go on to something bigger and better.

[ShadowStone]

The appraisal was done when it was because company policy is that all appraisals have to be done in that month, and getting our appraisals done then is one of our line manager's objectives on his own appraisal.

The main point of it in this case was to set objectives to be performance rated against in the next appraisal round.

My score in the appraisal was "New to role, too soon to assess". Which essentially means no performance evaluation has been done at all, and this doesn't fit in at all with the scoring the matrix vs appraisal plan.

[museumum]

It's unfair but are there also any newer staff in the same situation as they'd newly started? If so then the problem isn't unique to you due to maternity leave.

[flowery]

Any reason to think your manager won't score you fairly against the criteria? They are not actually using scores from appraisals if I understand correctly. Has there now been enough time for your manager to score you effectively?

[MovingOnUpMovingOnOut]

Did you not have an appraisal immediately before maternity leave and could they use that?

[ShadowStone]

Yes, I had an appraisal before I went on maternity leave.

The options at the minute seem to be either giving me neutral scores across the board, or using the latest appraisal before maternity leave.

Re. Manager assisting performance now. There would be enough time since i returned to assess performance in another appraisal - but we've been told that employees in redundancy pools aren't getting new appraisals, interim or otherwise, until after scoring is completed and victims selected. Presumably to avoid the possibility of people saying that managers gave out biased scores based on who the managers want to keep most.

There are parts of the proposed scoring criteria based directly on appraisal ratings, although there are also some more subjective sections.

I think one of the things upsetting me on Friday morning was that it seemed like HR were suggesting that the employee reps would get to decide, and some of the reps are directly against me in my redundancy pool so would have an incentive to pick the least fair way of dealing with this.

[flowery]

Using the appraisal you had before maternity leave seems sensible, do you have any problem with that?

Employee reps should be consulted on this type of thing but that doesn't mean you can put forward your personal view as well.

[honestpointofview]

I'm intrigued to know what they mean by neutral scoring across the board. It is the capacity to give rise to a discrimination claim......by a man. Eversheds solicitor's in a redundancy situation gave a women the top score for one category because she had been on maternity leave. unaspiringly the man that scored less complained and won. If by neutral score they mean give you middle marks or an average it could still give rise to a claim by a man. Of course that is not your problem!

[MovingOnUpMovingOnOut]

I suspect the op is more concerned that neutral scores might disadvantage her! Having once had to have a quiet word with a colleague who suggested a woman returning from maternity leave might "get a competent rating because you've not been in the business to meet the key objectives" rather than use the excellent appraisal conducted in her final week before maternity leave for the pay review I am aware how easily these things can happen.

The process must be fair to all and that means no unfair advantage or disadvantage for taking maternity leave. So using the "last appraisal" might mean it is appropriate to use the one from just before maternity leave because there's not enough time to get a fair assessment since the woman returned from maternity leave. That would be a reasonal adjustment to the process with a justifiable rationale.

Otherwise the process should be as consistent, just and fair as possible and there should be a right to consultation and if you have employee representatives it is to be expected they will be consulted with directly but everyone affected should have an opportunity to raise any concerns or questions. It is in the employer's interest to make things fair because they reduce the risk of someone making a claim for unfair dismissal or discrimination. So I can catagory state (unless your HR is run by a load of amateurs who enjoy attending tribunals) that the employee reps will absolutely not get to decide.

[maggiethemagpie]

Moving on - it is not in the employer's interest to make things fair - it is in the employer's interest to make things look asthough they are fair. Big difference.

[MovingOnUpMovingOnOut]

With respect, that is cobblers.

[honestpointofview]

employment solicitor here - my vote goes to Maggiethemagpie in so far as most employers will not not care if it is fair - they just want the right result (ie worst employee/most annoying to leave) and therefore will only care that it looks fair. It is a big difference.

[flowery]

The priority for most employers in a situation where they are reducing headcount/restructuring is to keep the best people and to avoid legal vulnerability.

Because a fair process usually involves assessing skills/experience/suitability for whatever jobs are there, happily those aims are often achieved with a fair process.

But it would be naïve to think that a fair process is the priority regardless of outcome. Plus various processes/selection criteria can all be viewed as fair in a legal sense, but the one which is more likely to achieve the desired outcome will be used.

[ShadowStone]

Still not heard which they're planning on going with (pre-maternity appraisal or neutral scores). The pre-maternity appraisal would be better from my point of view.

honest - surely your point about giving me neutral scores being possibly discriminatory against other employees would, I think, only be an issue if my performance (as measured on a pre-maternity appraisal for instance) would have resulted in worse than neutral scores?

Today's bombshell was that if a part time person - such as me - is top of the redundancy list, we only count as 0.5 people, so the employee scoring next worst will have to make up that missing 0.5 of a person. So if I was made redundant, one of my colleagues will also either be made redundant (if another part-timer) or be given the choice between going part-time and taking redundancy. Lots of when they spelt that one out.

[prepperpig]

That is completely normal though OP. They need to achieve a certain reduction in cost and that will equate to e.g. 1 FTE post. If you are part time and they make you redundant then they would also ned to make another PT person redundant to get a 1FTE reduction (also an employment lawyer)

[ShadowStone]

It quite possibly is completely normal.

I guess our department's been lucky enough to not be in that scenario before (i.e. part time people in the pool) so it's taken everyone by surprise.