Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

surely this is positive discrimation taken too far

92 replies

downthedustpipe · 14/06/2011 15:24

All our department has to apply for jobs at their level. We all know that jobs are going.
I am a level 4 worker and there are 9 people at that level. There is 6 jobs going.
So I would have thought we all have a good go at applying for it by application form and interview and the best 6 win and 3 lose.

However 2 women are currently on mat leave. We have been told by HR and the Union that these women's jobs are guarnteed. They don't have to go through any process and they remain a level 4 worker without having to fight it out with the rest of us. They are doing the same job, same pay, same terms and conditions as the rest of us.

So what we really have is 9 people going for 4 jobs. One has started mat leave and has said she is going to be off for at least a year. There won't be Mat cover.

The team is a mixed sex team with differing ages from 28 to 58.
(not that it makes a difference - just giving the whole picture)
We are a large local authority BTW

What are your thoughts?

I may post this in a different section to see if opinions differ.

OP posts:
EvenLessNarkyPuffin · 14/06/2011 15:56

Without this protection employers could decide they needed to make someone redundant, and it would just happen to be the pregnant woman/one on maternity leave. In this case it's a genuine need for redundancies, but the principle is the same. These women are out of the loop because they're on maternity leave, and as there has been no cover provided, the department clearly runs without them. Their leave has made them the logical candidates. They need protection.

FreudianSlipper · 14/06/2011 15:57

when asked if i coudl do overtime i had to be honest and also what hours i could do, i coudl not do early starts a 9-5 job was very hard to come by in the area i had always worked in. also why was i made redundant from a growing company

you have to admit at some point you have a child did i learnt to not tell them if it came up i was single

yes there coudl be a fairer system not sure what one, but there does need to be measures put in place for women on maternity leave

Gooseberrybushes · 14/06/2011 15:59

Cripes that seems pretty unfair to me.

Original poster
downthedustpipe · 14/06/2011 16:01

Evenless...... It's not a case that the department runs without them.

It is about saving wages and the jobs that we/they are doing won't exist as it is new job descriptions and roles.

OP posts:
TransatlanticCityGirl · 14/06/2011 16:03

One of the issues here is that in order to re-apply for their jobs, your employer would need to force them to return to the workplace (even if just for a few hours) for the assessment process. You cannot force a woman on maternity leave to come into the office during that period (this is to protect women from employers who expect maternity leavers from being coerced into working while on leave). And if she did come in, you'd have to pay her for a "keeping in touch" day (basically, her pro-rate day rate on on top of her mat leave) and she's only entitled to 10 of those... and then what about childcare so that she can come in for the assessment? Also, you didn't say how recently these women gave birth but it would be grossly unfair to put them through an assessment process when they might be completely shattered and brains not working properly due to having a newborn in the house.

The law says a woman on maternity leave is guaranteed the same job for the first 6 months, then a similar/equivalent job for the 6 months after that. You CAN make a woman redundant while on maternity leave... but if you are all doing the same exact job, it would put your company in a really bad legal position if they made her job redundant, when she could argue that she could equally have done any of your jobs.

I work in HR and wouldn't go near this one unless completely unavoidable... sorry if it sounds unfair to you, but also try and imagine how unfair it is to them as well.

hildathebuilder · 14/06/2011 16:04

under the pregnancy and maternity leave regulations (reg 10 i think) an employee who becomes redundant during her maternity leave is entitled to be offered any suitable alternative vacancy and if they are not any dismsisal is automtaiclly unfair under section 99 or the employment rights act. The referrences may have been updated with the equality act but the law remains as was

TransatlanticCityGirl · 14/06/2011 16:04

sorry...meant to say "to protect maternity leavers...."

Gooseberrybushes · 14/06/2011 16:05

Can you get pregnant tonight?

wannaBe · 14/06/2011 16:08

it's the law but I agree that it's wrong.

A woman shouldn't have any more right to a job purely because she is pregnant.

I agree that a pregnant woman should be able to come back to her original job, but if there is restructuring that everyone is involved in then she should be just as equal a part of that as anyone else.

EvenLessNarkyPuffin · 14/06/2011 16:09

Fair enough. I still think that protecting a jobs for women on maternity leave is the right thing to do. Even when the roles are being lost.

Your colleague who is 59 would have a very strong case for age discrimination if they tried to get rid of them. You may find that they're offered the option of early retirement to avoid that, which could work out better for them financially.

23balloons · 14/06/2011 16:14

I think it is wrong & unfair.

You will also find that the equality & diversity laws now will make it more difficult for you to get your job if you are white and ethnic minorities are underrepresented in your department. In the public sector I think there are now penalties for not having a workforce that represents the local community, on the other hand if you are an ethnic minority you can use that to get one of the jobs.

Good luck

EvenLessNarkyPuffin · 14/06/2011 16:16

OK. who left the bigot flap open? Own up.

JeelyPiece · 14/06/2011 16:16

It's the law, and while it seems unfair from your position it's the only way of making it impossible to get rid of a woman for being pg.

Also women on mat leave are at a real disadvantage when applying and competing for jobs alongside colleagues currently at work.

wudu · 14/06/2011 16:26

I completely agree with you OP.

I work for Local Govt and have seen this several times throughout our restructure. It's shit Angry

Fantastic workers have lost their jobs Sad

IMO it's harsh but unavoidable if they've lost out fair and square, but it's completely unfair and down-right disgraceful if it's just because their child will be the year above someone else's at school Hmm

I understand why HR do this btw, but that doesn't make it right!

TidyDancer · 14/06/2011 16:27

It's very difficult to find a good compromise with this. Discrimination is often hard to both see and prove, but to protect themselves in turn, the employers may feel almost obligated to keep both the pregnant/ML employees to avoid the problem.

I don't know how you would really make this fair tbh. It's not fair as it stands, but it's open to abuse by chucking the ML ladies in the pot with the others.

And I say this as someone currently on ML.

Original poster
downthedustpipe · 14/06/2011 16:29

Gwendoline when I said 6 jobs going I meant 6 ups for grabs not going as in lost.

OP posts:
thefirstMrsDeVere · 14/06/2011 16:31

23 may we see the policies and laws you are referring to?

I am very interested.

TheSnickeringFox · 14/06/2011 16:38

I think a few might have already slipped through...

MainlyMaynie · 14/06/2011 16:38

23balloons you are talking bollocks. Bigoted bollocks.

OP, is there any chance everyone could agree to a reduction in hours to avoid redundancies?

edwinbear · 14/06/2011 16:48

When I went on ML with DS we were expecting to have some redundancies announced imminently so I asked what would happen in my case. HR advised that as I would be on ML I would be unable to go through the consultancy process which would apply to everyone affected. Therefore, if I was going to be made redundant, my consultation period would start when I returned from ML. As transatlantic said, when on ML employers cannot force you into the office to discuss new roles/redundancy packages etc.

EvenLessNarkyPuffin · 14/06/2011 16:52
mdowdall · 14/06/2011 17:14

23 balloons can I make a suggestion? Dont bother speaking the truth on Mumsnet because you will be persecuted for it.

TheSnickeringFox · 14/06/2011 17:26

ELNP :o

That'll get 'em

notsogoldenoldie · 14/06/2011 17:56

It's discrimination, IHHO, against workers in your situation, because you are being treated less favourably for no reason. EVERYONE should have to apply for their jobs, including the pregnant / maternity leave people, otherwise the application process is unfair, and therefore discriminatory. I think the Union and HR are doing a belt and braces job so not to be caught out by potential claims.

I'd take this up with the union - as a member, you should have equal representation as the pregnant workers; if you are not - then get thee a membership!!

Andrewofgg · 14/06/2011 18:51

It is a complete myth that you must protect people on mat. leave from redundancy. If you treat them as you would if they were there - but e.g. allows them to rely on appraisals from before they went on leave - you are in the clear. Otherwise you may face an unfair dismissal claim from whoever gets the chop and should not have done - and a discrim claim if he is male!