Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Maternity leave - is this allowed?

42 replies

NCKitten · 13/02/2019 19:51

I've been on maternity leave since September. Prior to leaving I had a meeting with my boss in which I signalled my interest in a particular position. I was told that recruitment for that position was on hold, as they were reconsidering the role. I asked to be kept in mind for it. Initially I read my work emails while I was on leave (which work knew), but I haven't done so for a while now. Today I found out that my line manager has got the position I was interested in. I was not contacted explicitly about this, while they did call me about two months into my leave asking about my plans to return. I feel my career has been stalled because I was on leave. Have my work been remiss, or should I just suck it up?

OP posts:

flowery · 14/02/2019 10:32

You are supposed to be kept informed of vacancies, yes. You had already signalled your interest though, and asked to be considered when the recruitment started.

Therefore, although they should really have specifically told you recruitment was starting, is there any reason to think they didn't consider you? It's not as if they had no idea you were interested because you didn't know about the post and therefore didn't apply. You knew about it and they knew you wanted it.

Have you asked whether they considered you? Was there an actual process, with applications, CVs, interviews, that you missed? Or was it more informal and therefore them being aware you wanted it was sufficient for them to take you into consideration.

Ultimately, if the position went to your line manager, it would seem unlikely that you would have been appointed. You'd have a stronger argument if you hadn't known about it at all, hadn't therefore signalled your interest, hadn't therefore been considered, and the position had gone to someone on your level or lower.

Nesssie · 14/02/2019 10:37

Got to agree with Amongstthestars and anniehm on this actually. You weren't really in the position to take the additional responsibilities. They hired someone who was there and able to fulfil the new position.

Crocodilesoup · 14/02/2019 10:51

So, Nessie by the same token then an employer shouldn’t employ a pregnant candidate, even if they’re best for the job?

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

Families

IWannaSeeHowItEnds · 14/02/2019 10:53

I think it's probably the case that they needed someone who could take on the additional responsibilities now , so it was expedient to give it to your line manager who was physically there. A case of being in the right place at the right time?

I have some sympathy with Among the stars. She's just saying that employers only really care about getting their business done - you've made a choice to take time out, which they've had no say in and have to (rightly) legally accommodate. But from their pov, your choice is a pita for them. Why should they wait for you to come back before filling a role they want to fill immediately?

Crocodilesoup · 14/02/2019 10:57

OP might have gone back early, she was never given the option.

IWannaSeeHowItEnds · 14/02/2019 11:22

How would the employer stand if they said to the OP that she could interview for this job but would have to cut short her leave in order to take it? They'd be opening themselves up to accusations of discrimination against women on mat leave and likely been forced to hold the job opening for her until she decided to return, which could have been a year away (even though she said she only intended to take 26 weeks).
Easier for the employer to duck the whole thing and give the role to someone already available.

flowery · 14/02/2019 11:56

Why are people assuming the reason the OP wasn’t offered the post was because she’s not able to start immediately? Her line manager got the job. Seems to me the most likely explanation is that someone with a higher level of experience applied.

SleepingStandingUp · 14/02/2019 12:48

As far as I'm aware, it is illegal not to consider someone for a position because they are on maternity leave

How was the job awarded- interview or just unofficial yes X can do it?
If advertised, where was it advertised?

If it was just internal discussion and then given to X you can't say you weren't considered, just that you didn't get it.

Crocodilesoup · 14/02/2019 13:05

Flowery would you not think it was more sensible for the employer to still inform the OP - if she was less suitable then she still wouldn’t have got the job, but would not be feeling left out from the process.
In some jobs levels of experience can help you get the interview but the final selection has to be based on answers at interview only.

Original poster

NCKitten · 14/02/2019 14:13

The union have said that there is no expectation for me to read my work emails (they're not even supposed to email me, although I asked to be kept on this list). If the post was advertised online then it's up to me to keep up to date. However, if it was only advertised through a poster in my workplace then they're in the wrong. I don't know how it was advertised or how it was recruited for. I am going to find this out during my kit day tomorrow.

For at least the third time, I know it is unlikely I would have got it. However, that doesn't mean I didn't want to apply or that there was no point in applying. I also don't care that they might have needed someone right now (which I doubt anyway, as recruitment tends to be once a year, at a different time of year), the law states that I should still be considered. Of course I can see why they did what they did, but that doesn't make it OK. And thanks for pointing out I'm a PITA for them, I was quite aware of that already... FWIW I feel I would have had a fair bit to offer that my line manager hasn't, although I don't know whether it would've mattered.

OP posts:

2019Dancerz · 14/02/2019 14:40

I think there is a point to having been interviewed if you don’t get it as you are seen as being “in the running” and may have impressed an interviewer who might consider you next time.

flowery · 14/02/2019 15:49

”Flowery would you not think it was more sensible for the employer to still inform the OP”

Yes of course they should have done. I’m just saying it’s potentially not quite as dreadful as if they’d had a vacancy the OP had no knowledge of at all which they gave to a colleague on the same level because the OP didn’t have an opportunity to apply.

They are clearly not without fault, but it may well be a case of rubbish communication rather than deliberately excluding the OP.

Toastisfun · 14/02/2019 15:52

Slow hand clap for @amongstthestars
Nice one.

IWannaSeeHowItEnds · 14/02/2019 16:32

You don't care that they might have needed someone right now. You are taking a view that your personal life choices should be prioritized by the business and that's just not going to happen.
They have rightfully protected your job so you are not disadvantaged by taking mat leave, but they don't owe it to you to interview you and hang around waiting for you to return to work, if the business requires the role to be filled now and they have a suitable person who is already there.

Original poster

NCKitten · 14/02/2019 16:49

This thread is getting ridiculous now. I most definitely don't think that my personal life choices should be prioritised by my employer (which, by the way, is not a business seeking to make a profit). I posted because I wanted to know whether my work had been in the wrong or not. In that context, I do not care about their motivations, just about the legality of their actions. Equality legislation exists precisely because employers do a fairly good job of looking after their own interests at the expense of, for example, mothers. It sounds you're accusing me of being selfish and/ or precious. Your choice to see women standing up for their rights like this. I'll keep on fighting. Feel free to profit from the results.

OP posts:

Sleepyquest · 14/02/2019 16:54

I knew someone who was overlooked for a promotion whilst on Mat leave so she sued (and won)

Andylion · 14/02/2019 17:17

if it was a job vacancy that was advertised internally but they didn’t make you aware (ie by personal email - you shouldn’t be expected to check work emails)

Aozora13 can I ask what you mean by work email vs personal email? Do you mean that HR should send emails to a personal email address or that they should send a separate email about jobs to individuals on leave. I am asking because I can't imagine how that would work at my workplace, (unionized, not in the UK), where all postings for jobs are sent via work email to everyone.

I can see that this case is different though as the OP says It wasn't a promotion as such, just taking on additional responsibilities so it wouldn't have been a new position. OP, maybe they did consider you, but also considered the whole organization and made the decision based on that?

Flip

1 2