Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Taking a job in a tiny business when pregnant

455 replies

Fromageetvino · 23/12/2021 13:13

Ok so I know IABU but venting a little.
I took on my first FT employee in July this year (already have 1 x part timer). Three weeks in she disclosed that she is pregnant and is now off on Mat leave.

It’s an industry where recruiting is super difficult at the moment so getting a mat leave cover is likely to be practically impossible.

I know it’s her right etc, and of course have treated her fairly and she will be returning whenever she chooses to return.

But if I’m honest - it’s absolutely screwed our plans for any growth this year (on top of covid troubles).

While I know it’s “right” would you take on a job in a small business when pregnant?

Am prepared to get flamed here (hence the NC).

OP posts:
WouldIBeATwat · 23/12/2021 22:53

Yes. I made that exact point further up.

Blossom987 · 23/12/2021 23:02

@WouldIBeATwat

Yes. I made that exact point further up.
Sorry I misunderstood your post as didn’t link it with your previous post. I thought you were suggesting OP should have got rid of her during probation for a non-discriminatory reason (I.e. make one up!).
Blossom987 · 23/12/2021 23:06

[quote UnshakenNeedsStirring]@Fromageetvino in which case she knew she was pregnant but didnt declare it.
I really dont know what to say.[/quote]
Why should she have declared it? She was under no obligation to. She was actually very wise not to, to protect herself from discrimination.

Original poster
Fromageetvino · 23/12/2021 23:11

@Blossom987 she would have not been disrcimated against but at least I would have known.

OP posts:
KeranaCosmonauts · 23/12/2021 23:31

@Fromageetvino But you're annoyed that she didn't disclose she was pregnant, so what would you have done if she had? Not hired her? Illegal.
Or, if you'd have hired her regardless, then it's irrelevant whether she'd disclosed her pregnancy or not at the interview stage, so why the anger.

UnshakenNeedsStirring · 23/12/2021 23:34

@Blossom987 she was being dishonest, she knew she was pregnant

KeranaCosmonauts · 23/12/2021 23:48

@UnshakenNeedsStirring She wasn't being dishonest. She was under no obligation to disclose her pregnancy, and she quite rightly didn't, given the discrimination that clearly still exists.

@Fromageetvino So if you'd known, then what? You'd still be in exactly the same situation - having to find maternity cover and struggling to take on the projects you planned to.

WouldIBeATwat · 23/12/2021 23:52

[quote KeranaCosmonauts]@Fromageetvino But you're annoyed that she didn't disclose she was pregnant, so what would you have done if she had? Not hired her? Illegal.
Or, if you'd have hired her regardless, then it's irrelevant whether she'd disclosed her pregnancy or not at the interview stage, so why the anger.
[/quote]
Wouldn’t have been illegal not to hire her if there was a better candidate.

(Employment breaches are unlawful rather than illegal.)

Blossom987 · 23/12/2021 23:52

[quote Fromageetvino]@Blossom987 she would have not been disrcimated against but at least I would have known.[/quote]
In a previous post you wrote

‘Instead she picked us, at six months pregnant. And didn’t disclose it either (I like to think it wouldn’t have affected my descision but I wouldn’t swear my life on it either).’

So there was a risk she would have been discriminated against and she was wise to not disclose it before receiving a job offer. This actually protects you/employers as well believe it or not, it avoids any possibility of being accused of discrimination! This goes for any protected characteristic.

Having said that, maybe the issue is how long she left it after the job offer before telling you? I don’t think 3 weeks in after starting the job is neither here nor there but if she was on a lengthy notice period before that and it meant she went close to two months after the job offer without telling you then I think she was potentially in the wrong. But women also don’t have to tell their employers before 25 weeks I think it is. So depends on what her gestation was as to whether she was unreasonable not telling you immediately.

I must admit I’m struggling with the timeline though if you say she accepted the job at six months and had the baby first of December. Even if she was two weeks over due that would make month 6/weeks 24-28 the whole of august but you said she started end of july. So she would have accepted the job before that, even with an immediate start. Was she actually closer to or even before 20 weeks when she applied for the job / was interviewed?

Blossom987 · 23/12/2021 23:55

[quote UnshakenNeedsStirring]@Blossom987 she was being dishonest, she knew she was pregnant[/quote]
Do you think it’s also dishonest if applicants don’t disclose disabilities, chronic illnesses, caring responsibilities (or any other non-visible protected characteristic) at interview stage?

Why does OP need to know at interview stage whether a woman is pregnant or not?

KeranaCosmonauts · 24/12/2021 00:01

@WouldIBeATwat Yeah but if someone else is a "better candidate" because they're not pregnant and this woman is, then that's discrimination and illegal.

WouldIBeATwat · 24/12/2021 00:09

Please stop saying illegal. It’s unlawful. Not the same at all.

And, rightly or wrongly, it wouldn’t be hard to manage the situation at the time. The individual has no right to know about any other candidates’ performance so if they are told they weren’t the best candidate there’s not a lot they could prove.

RoyalFamilyFan · 24/12/2021 00:21

No it is illegal.

Illegal means that it is forbidden by a law that has been passed. Unlawful means that it is not authorised by law because no such law has been passed.3

RoyalFamilyFan · 24/12/2021 00:23

And candidates can ask to see all paperwork that guided hiring decisions. You can also be asked in a court to explain why you hired another individual. That will include comparing CVs between candidates.

Freecuthbert · 24/12/2021 00:25

@WouldIBeATwat

Please stop saying illegal. It’s unlawful. Not the same at all.

And, rightly or wrongly, it wouldn’t be hard to manage the situation at the time. The individual has no right to know about any other candidates’ performance so if they are told they weren’t the best candidate there’s not a lot they could prove.

It is literally against the law, which you are very clearly trying to advocate people to go against, no matter how you try to word it, as if unlawful sounds much better! Luckily employment tribunals see through such bullshit, and rightly put businesses in their place when they act as you advise.
CantHaveTooMuchChocolate · 24/12/2021 00:28

@UntilYourNextHairBrainedScheme

If, as some argue would be right, small businesses weren't subject to the same employment law as larger ones then absolutely no valuable employee with sought after skills and common sense would even consider applying to or working for a small business. Only people who couldn't get a decent job would take one with inferior employee protection.
Not true, what do you think freelancing/self employed contractors are? They have next to no employment rights when working for a client but many (including myself) still do it and enjoy it.
RoyalFamilyFan · 24/12/2021 00:30

I worked for a firm that took the view that no candidate could prove they had been discriminated against when hiring. They were taken to an industrial tribunal for racism. The complainant was supported by an organisation that fights racism. The complainant ultimately lost their case. But the industrial tribunal ruled in the initial assessment that there was a case to answer and it went to full tribunal. The business spent an absolute fortune in lawyers and masses of the CEO time to prepare a case.
Most people don't do this, they just walk away. But if you take the approach that you can do what you want irrespective of the law, you may be caught out.

RoyalFamilyFan · 24/12/2021 00:32

@CantHaveTooMuchChocolate yes but self-employed contractors either tend to be those desperate for a job e.g. uber drivers or much better paid than their salaried colleagues. I would only do my job self employed if I got more money overall.

Blossom987 · 24/12/2021 01:21

I think in the event of a tribunal the burden of proof lays with the employer to prove they didn’t discriminate. The claimant doesn’t have to provide the proof they did. This is why many reputable organisations do point scoring for each candidate. If someone tried to claim discrimination they could provide copies of their interview documents and assessments and easily prove the selection was fair and non-discriminatory.

Again this is why it’s also in the employers best interests that protected characteristics are not disclosed at interview stage if possible (I appreciate some are visible or candidate may prefer to be discussed).

RoyalFamilyFan · 24/12/2021 01:23

Can I just add, point-scoring at interviews helps. But it surprised me in the case I knew about that they also considered the CVs of each candidate and wanted to know if the person appointed had more experience or skills. Just the interview did not seem to be enough.

DontBlameMe79 · 24/12/2021 01:31

I wouldn’t do this to a small business. To a big corporate, no problem as they have inherent advantages already like economies of scale and dealing with this is just part of being in business.

But to do it to a small business is taking the piss really, no matter the legalities. And anyway, you have to work with owners later on so the bad feeling created isn’t going to lead to a positive work environment.

Booklover3 · 24/12/2021 01:49

I’ve been on the opposite end. I was 19 and in my first job temping in an office through an agency and it was going well… I thought. Then the manager had a quiet word with me and told me that the company would never take me on permanently because I was “of childbearing age.”

Unfortunately for me no one was around at the time so I couldn’t do anything about it, but it has stuck with me. The injustice. 8 years later I had my first child at that age it was the furthest thing from my mind!

But to answer your OP no I wouldn’t do that to a small business… and even if I did find out I was pregnant I would’ve said at interview.

CantHaveTooMuchChocolate · 24/12/2021 01:52

[quote RoyalFamilyFan]@CantHaveTooMuchChocolate yes but self-employed contractors either tend to be those desperate for a job e.g. uber drivers or much better paid than their salaried colleagues. I would only do my job self employed if I got more money overall.[/quote]
Yes I completely agree, and if this was the case with smaller companies then they would obviously have to pay more (or offer incentives like shares, more interesting work, etc) to entice employees. A lot of small startups in my sector do that now as a way to attract talent.

BellatricksStrange · 24/12/2021 02:41

@Freecuthbert @StFrancisdeCompostela

This isn't about a woman who 'got' pregnant, but one who was pregnant yet still took a job, knowing full well she'd skip within a few weeks leaving the employer in the lurch. If that's not considered screwing over I don't know what is.

Ericaequites · 24/12/2021 02:42

As someone who worked in a small family firm, the European attitude toward maternity leave seems mad. Having someone work for three months of training, then flounce off for a year of paid leave is unsustainable. After finding and training cover, you then have to let the person go, and take back the first employee, bringing her back up to speed. Most small businesses run tight margins, and don’t have the slack to handle this. Having only part timers requires lots of coordination. It’s not suitable for many positions. To create more economic growth, firms with under 25 full time employees should be exempt from this.