New recruit pregnant before job starting

[FlimFlamJimJams]

I've started a new business, it'll open to the public around April time.
It's a very small, community focused business with only 4 staff members initially.
I recruited all the staff within the last few weeks and are finalising contracts. Everyone has formal job offers, no one yet has a job contract.

The roles require training on the job resulting in a nationally recognised qualification, probably achieved within 12 months or so. The business is paying for this.

I have had meetings with everyone individually this week to go through bits and bobs, start dates etc - and at the end of a meeting with one lady yesterday, she tells me that she's 12 weeks pregnant and anticipates starting her Maternity leave around mid-July. She said she found out at 5 weeks - so she'd have known she was pregnant at interview.

I'm now stuck in a difficult position - the business is already going to struggle financially for the first few years (it's not quite a non-profit, but it's close) and I'm now facing having to extend someone's training at least 6 months past everyone else's as well as find temporary cover, which is expensive. She may well choose not to return after her maternity. I turned down other applicants who applied after her job offer was made.

I guess there isn't a AIBU, because I'm not going to do anything, but I feel really deceived and a bit stressed about the whole thing.
I know everyone is entitled to get pregnant etc. But I wasn't anticipating someone going on ML before they'd even qualified, or finished their probation.

* I would suggest adding into the contract that all staff will be enrolled onto their qualification after successfully completing their probationary period.*

^Also write into the contract that if anyone leaves the company within a certain time period they will have to pay back all training costs.

@RoomOfRequirement so OP is supposed to lose out on thousands of whatever her currency is because someone wants her maternity paid and deliberately withheld information before stitching OP up? Double standards!! Want equality but only when it suits you right?

I’m sure you have already posted about this. You are annoyed that a woman applied for a job with your small company while pregnant, and accepted, knowing that you were starting out and paying for a year’s training. It is difficult for small companies to manage longer term absences. However you won’t be paying her wages or maternity pay. As others have said can you defer training until she returns, would any of the other interviewees be suitable for maternity offer?

Fact is anything could happen. Another staff member could become pregnant during the training or request paternity leave. Any of your staff could become ill. Any of your staff could disclose a disability that you may have to work around.

It sounds like it’s a steep learning curve in business.

@notanothertakeaway

Big drip feed that you're not in the UK. People have wasted time giving you advice

Not sure why people would have proffered advice, as OP was very clear in her opening post that she wasn’t asking for advice, wasn’t going to act differently, but simply felt deceived and frustrated by this outcome - totally understandable in the circumstances.

OP - credit to you for following UK laws because you think they’re fairer. You sound like a great employer, and I’m sorry this has happened to you. Yes, of course women should not be discriminated against for getting pregnant (and you’ve been clear that this is not your intention), but it’s completely understandable that this has come as a blow to your new company. I wish you every success as you move forward - you sound lovely

[quote FlimFlamJimJams]@RoomOfRequirement

The Maternity pay isn't really the issue - it's the training.
To do the job, everyone must do the training. I specifically employed on that basis and it was made very clear in the advert and at interview that everyone would need to get qualified within 12-14 months.

By going on ML, she will be missing at least 6 months of training meaning that I'm going to have to extend the contract with the supplier just for her. It's at least £1000 a month plus assessor fees etc. So one staff member doing it separately to the rest is going to cost a fortune, not to mention the logistics of not having everyone qualify at the same time.[/quote]
That's your fault for giving such a long timeframe. She can easily qualify within 2 years.

Maybe you could include the new employee in your decision making. Be upfront and tell her what problems this situation is going to cause you - and ask her if she has any suggestions to ameliorate the situation. She might surprise you and come out with something you hadn't thought of. A good test for her lateral thinking and ingenuity.

@girlmom21

I imagine OP is not giving enhanced maternity, so it doesn't cost anything!

OP's not in the UK so we don't know this.
If she's offering full-length maternity it's going to cost something as most countries aren't as generous as us.

OP is apparently in a country where it is legal to fire a pregnant woman. I'm therefore assuming it's not the law they have to pay full maternity - and OP hasn't said otherwise - but I could be wrong.

I think you should keep her, if you can afford it, and hire someone to cover her leave. If the business then grows, you might even be able to keep them on permanently when she returns.
I started a job at 12 weeks pregnant and didn't say anything until a few weeks after starting - I was being underpaid in my previous role and I didn't want to risk my pregnancy being used against me.

There's a goady thread like this every few weeks, have a search.

TBF, I suppose another person from your team might get pregnant, be ill, or leave for other reasons, so you could have had people qualifying at different times anyway

I sympathise with your predicament and can see why it's frustrating, but I think it's just part and parcel of running a business

To do the job, everyone must do the training. I specifically employed on that basis and it was made very clear in the advert and at interview that everyone would need to get qualified within 12-14 months.

I find this odd.
It seems that you have not taken into account any mishaps, or done a risk assessment.
Candidates may not be able to qualify within 12-14 months if the training takes about that long. You really should have included the possibility that one (or more candidates) will need more time for any reason.

@RoomOfRequirement no but she said she was following UK laws - and mentioning the length of time the woman would be off - which suggests she's offering a decent length maternity and paying at least the equivalent of SMP

YANBU that’s not fair to you. Different if she didn’t know at the time.

You should have anticipated an atrittion rate for your employees for whatever reason. If the pregnancy hadn't worked out she would have needed the job and training. She has been very wise and should be supported, that way she may be more likely to come back.

I think if the training was a requirement of the role and made clear, could you explore delaying her starting with you altogether? She must have realised that she could not do the training if she left half way through? How long is mat leave in the country?

As for extending the contract just for her, that might happen anyway if someone else decides the job is not for them.

[quote FlimFlamJimJams]@RoomOfRequirement

The Maternity pay isn't really the issue - it's the training.
To do the job, everyone must do the training. I specifically employed on that basis and it was made very clear in the advert and at interview that everyone would need to get qualified within 12-14 months.

By going on ML, she will be missing at least 6 months of training meaning that I'm going to have to extend the contract with the supplier just for her. It's at least £1000 a month plus assessor fees etc. So one staff member doing it separately to the rest is going to cost a fortune, not to mention the logistics of not having everyone qualify at the same time.[/quote]
What country are you in that firing someone due to pregnancy us legal, but they can also take over 6 months maternity? I'm intrigued.

What would your plan have been if she got pregnant after starting? Or now? Or someone had a long term illness or accident and took the same length of time? I'm sorry it's inconvenient for you but it really is a cost of running a business. Pregnancy is just the only one people complain about.

I respect that you are not going to treat her differently, so I'm not saying you are acting in a misogynistic way, but plenty of these comments are, which is what my point was.

but I feel really deceived and a bit stressed about the whole thing.

YABU in feeling deceived because it is one question you shouldn't ask in an interview, nor if a man wants to be a father, and in many countries men can take a lengthy parental leave as well, now.

It is something you should have antecipated and prepared for.
It's annoying, but you should me more annoyed at yourself than the candidate.

Tbh in your circs it is sadly a bit of a no brainer. You can't afford for her to leave the training half way through. Unless she plans on taking a short maternity leave so you only end up holding on to the provider for an extra month or 2. She probably doesn't understand the way the training relationship works.

I appreciate this sounds like a misogynistic thing to say, but essentially if your business can't survive then they're all out of a job.

@RoomOfRequirement really idiotic to compare pregnancy to cancer btw, well done. Jeez

You seem to be dithering about showing her the door: why is that?

You either think she's done a shitty thing and, if it won't cost you more than than training her, just shut the door on her.

If you don't want to get rid of her, well then keep her.

That's it isn't it?

@Benjispruce5

YANBU that’s not fair to you. Different if she didn’t know at the time.

If she'd have told op she wouldn't have got the job

someone had a long term illness or accident and took the same length of time? I'm sorry it's inconvenient for you but it really is a cost of running a business. Pregnancy is just the only one people complain about.

That’s because pregnancy is the only one that’s a choice. This situation is the reason post menopausal women clean up in the job market. Any employer who’s been caught like this tends to be wary of recruiting women of childbearing age, women with adult children are very attractive.

This is pretty despicable of her but she's got you and its going to cost you. How does she think the working relationship will progress? She's the reason men are preferred by small businesses. You are accepting with very good grace and at least know you are the better person. Hopefully she won't entirely skewer your business and it will just mean a few more years til your stable.