Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask if this is maternity discrimination?

266 replies

Ohtheaudacity · 18/02/2022 18:50

I am on maternity leave and due back to work at the end of May. I have a 4yo and 8mo. When I return to work I will have had a full year of mat leave. My pregnancy was uncomplicated but my son fell very poorly at 14 weeks old. He pulled through but is now being investigated for potential cerebral palsy. I had a meeting with my manager in January and explained my personal situation and how my desire now was to reduce my working hours/responsibility (my current role is senior management with a huge workload) to have a better work life balance. They were receptive to this and went away to work on a new position for me in the company in reduced hours/responsibility.

Today I had a further meeting with them where they outlined a new position to fulfil a business need and which suited my needs. I was made aware they had offered my current role to the person who is my maternity cover currently. However, it was then explained that my new role would be on a significantly reduced salary pro-rate, almost £6 an hour less equivalent. I raised a concern that as a woman returning from mat leave I was entitled to either my old job back or a different role on the same pay. They then said in that case I could either have my old role back on my old hours & salary, or accept the new job on the reduced salary (“hourly rate”).

I spoke to ACAS who advised because my employer has verbally offered my current role to someone else, they have effectively brought my current job to an end. As this has happened while I am on maternity leave and they have offered the role to my maternity cover, it could amount to discrimination. ACAS have also advised me that verbal job offers and acceptances are legally binding. My employer is therefore obliged to offer me a job on similar terms than I was on before as they have effectively brought my current job to an end.

Does this sound right? I don’t want to raise hell unless I have to as I work for a small company and I’ve been there for 15 years. I’d really appreciate any advice and will answer any questions. Thank you.

OP posts:
spudjulia · 19/02/2022 21:21

You mean in the proposed restructure that would come into effect from the date the op returned to work, i.e. 1 April, that has been proposed purely to retain her?

No. She doesn't return to work on 1st April. She said she doesn't return till June. Who said the company restructure was done purely to retain her! Definitely not the OP. That's an assumption made and seems became accepted as fact by some posters.

spudjulia · 19/02/2022 21:25

The OP says that her job changes on 1st April as part of a wider company restructure and her job has become one of 2 jobs (the other has been offered to her mat cover). And she return to work at start of June. So her old job will have gone by then.

Itsalmostanaccessory · 19/02/2022 21:27

@spudjulia

You really have misunderstood this.

The OP has clearly said there is a new, tweaked version of her job at the same pay and there is a lower level job at less pay. She has until Friday to tell them which job she wants.

Her old job is hers (it's just been changed slightly but same parameters). If she wants it, it is hers.

If she still wants the demotion then she can have that but she obviously will get paid less.

This has all been clearly stated. I advised the OP to double check by email but it's really quite clear.

You're wrong.

spudjulia · 19/02/2022 21:30

😂😂

spudjulia · 19/02/2022 21:32

. They say this new role is part of a wider company restructure and is effective 1st April. I am not due back until early June but when I am back I will join the team in this new, lesser worse paid job.

Just copying this again. The restructure means her 'old' job is now less well paid.

nanbread · 19/02/2022 21:36

[quote Itsalmostanaccessory]@spudjulia

You really have misunderstood this.

The OP has clearly said there is a new, tweaked version of her job at the same pay and there is a lower level job at less pay. She has until Friday to tell them which job she wants.

Her old job is hers (it's just been changed slightly but same parameters). If she wants it, it is hers.

If she still wants the demotion then she can have that but she obviously will get paid less.

This has all been clearly stated. I advised the OP to double check by email but it's really quite clear.

You're wrong.[/quote]
I don't think it is 100% clear, personally, whether once the job is "tweaked" it is still up for offer to her, but we should probably assume it is.

Let's remember that OP has given this company 15 years' service and has a very poorly baby to contend with, and deserves maybe a bit more empathy and kindness than some posters on here are showing.

nanbread · 19/02/2022 21:36

@spudjulia

. They say this new role is part of a wider company restructure and is effective 1st April. I am not due back until early June but when I am back I will join the team in this new, lesser worse paid job.

Just copying this again. The restructure means her 'old' job is now less well paid.

No, I think there she's talking about the job belle the "sales manager" role.
nanbread · 19/02/2022 21:37

*below

Itsalmostanaccessory · 19/02/2022 21:37

@spudjulia

No. You are just wrong.

The OP was quite clear.

Her old job has been given a new title with slight changes to the role. It is on the same pay.

Two new supporting roles have been created.

The OP asked them for a demotion, so they came back and told her that she could have one of the supporting roles which is new. On less pay because she asked to be demoted.

The OP complained about the pay drop.

They told her she could have her old position (which has a new title but is the same job).

Read all her posts. That is what has happened.

Her old job is still there. It was senior manager. It has a new title and some duties have been spread between 2 new supporting roles but it is her job at the same pay.

She has been told to choose which job she wants.

You really have misunderstood and I'm embarrassed for you that this has to be explained to you multiple times.

The only reason her boss imagines her in one of the new supporting roles is because she went to them and asked to be moved down into a role with less responsibility. She said, "I want a role with less responsibility." They've said, "well, we have restructured. Your old job is now called team leader and there are 2 new positions just below that. You could have one of those, because you asked to be demoted."

She now doesnt want to be demoted because of the pay drop so they have told her she can have the team leader job.

spudjulia · 19/02/2022 21:41

[quote Itsalmostanaccessory]@spudjulia

No. You are just wrong.

The OP was quite clear.

Her old job has been given a new title with slight changes to the role. It is on the same pay.

Two new supporting roles have been created.

The OP asked them for a demotion, so they came back and told her that she could have one of the supporting roles which is new. On less pay because she asked to be demoted.

The OP complained about the pay drop.

They told her she could have her old position (which has a new title but is the same job).

Read all her posts. That is what has happened.

Her old job is still there. It was senior manager. It has a new title and some duties have been spread between 2 new supporting roles but it is her job at the same pay.

She has been told to choose which job she wants.

You really have misunderstood and I'm embarrassed for you that this has to be explained to you multiple times.

The only reason her boss imagines her in one of the new supporting roles is because she went to them and asked to be moved down into a role with less responsibility. She said, "I want a role with less responsibility." They've said, "well, we have restructured. Your old job is now called team leader and there are 2 new positions just below that. You could have one of those, because you asked to be demoted."

She now doesnt want to be demoted because of the pay drop so they have told her she can have the team leader job.[/quote]
Why are you embarrassed for me? You don't know me. And that's quite rude of you. I've not been rude to you. Think I'd rather be wrong that rude.

AlexaShutUp · 19/02/2022 23:38

@spudjulia

The OP says that her job changes on 1st April as part of a wider company restructure and her job has become one of 2 jobs (the other has been offered to her mat cover). And she return to work at start of June. So her old job will have gone by then.
So what do you think is the other job, then? The OP has been very clear that she has been asked to choose between the two.
spudjulia · 20/02/2022 07:34

A non-managerial job. Less pay, less responsibility.

She says in her post after the 'update' that on one hand they're saying she can have her old job back, but on the other hand they're saying it won't exist after 1st April and so she is confused. That's why I think her old job isn't there to go back to. Because she says it won't exist.

I find it so odd that there are a couple of posters who are so adamant that there's only their way of understanding the information that they are prepared to be so rude, rather than just wait and see if the OP clarifies. Seriously wondering what they're getting out of this continued insistence that I am wrong and apparently embarrassingly stupid for being wrong.

Chestofdraws · 20/02/2022 08:13

They have said she can have her old job but it will change slightly effective 1 April due to an internal restructure.

bcc89 · 20/02/2022 08:18

@spudjulia

A non-managerial job. Less pay, less responsibility.

She says in her post after the 'update' that on one hand they're saying she can have her old job back, but on the other hand they're saying it won't exist after 1st April and so she is confused. That's why I think her old job isn't there to go back to. Because she says it won't exist.

I find it so odd that there are a couple of posters who are so adamant that there's only their way of understanding the information that they are prepared to be so rude, rather than just wait and see if the OP clarifies. Seriously wondering what they're getting out of this continued insistence that I am wrong and apparently embarrassingly stupid for being wrong.

I thought this (and the other) thread was done with yesterday

OP asked for less hours and less responsibility. Was offered a job to meet this with less pay, didn't want it. Has been told she can have her old job back.

It doesnt matter that someone else is now doing the same role as her, what has been offered to someone else, or what the job titles all are. This is completely irrelevant.

OP is a CF changer, wanting less hours and responsibility for the same wage and is desperately trying to find discrimination in all of this.

She's been offered her role back (or equal to, if you want to worry about the job title change, or the fact someone else has been offered the same role too) or she has been offered less hours/responsibility/pay.

OP just has to choose which one, but looks like she fancied the same wage for doing less. Hmm

brainhurts · 20/02/2022 08:18

I don't think op will be back to clarify. I think she was looking to build a case that she is being discriminated against.

spudjulia · 20/02/2022 08:19

@Chestofdraws

They have said she can have her old job but it will change slightly effective 1 April due to an internal restructure.
This is how I'm reading it too
GabriellaMontez · 20/02/2022 08:26

This is what I'd do. Email. I'm coming back to my old job on my old money.

If they decline this go back to acas. If yhdy accept it start looking elsewhere for another job.

Chestofdraws · 20/02/2022 08:29

@GabriellaMontez

This is what I'd do. Email. I'm coming back to my old job on my old money.

If they decline this go back to acas. If yhdy accept it start looking elsewhere for another job.

Why would they decline it when they’ve already told her she can have it?

Are people just not reading the thread?

The issue is not she can’t have her old job on the same money, the issue is she doesn’t want it, she wants less hours and responsibilities for the same money and was hoping as she’d had a baby maternity laws entitled her to that.

spudjulia · 20/02/2022 08:46

@brainhurts

I don't think op will be back to clarify. I think she was looking to build a case that she is being discriminated against.
I think you're probably right about not coming back.

I do prefer to give her the benefit of the doubt about her intentions, though. She's been dealing with a very poorly baby, potentially getting her head round ongoing medical needs and how that's going to make it difficult to go back to her old job, presumably investigating childcare options and realising the battle that many SN parents face finding appropriate and affordable childcare, as well as managing appointments to investigate CP. It's a lot to come to terms with.

Chestofdraws · 20/02/2022 08:50

I also think this was she is in a difficult situation, she needs the money but can’t do her old job as is, and she went down a rabbit hole that wasn’t realistic or acceptable really. Desperate people do things they’d not normally.

AlexaShutUp · 20/02/2022 08:56

I agree that the OP is probably finding her current situation very stressful and I don't necessarily think she is angling for a payout as such. I just think that the situation may have clouded her judgement/got in the way of her thinking straight.

I still don't really understand how people are reading it differently. The OP has stated very clearly, several times, that the employer has told her that she can have her old job back. They specifically told her this when she raised the question about her right to come back on the same pay/T&C. So if people don't think that this means that the slightly tweaked job in the new structure is on the same pay and conditions as her old job, what do they think the employer meant when they said that she could do back to her previous job if she chose? I am not insisting that my reading of the situation is right, I am just asking what else that could actually mean.

spudjulia · 20/02/2022 09:04

I am not insisting that my reading of the situation is right,

To be fair, you did say that your interpretation was the only sensible one.

brainhurts · 20/02/2022 09:08

I have to agree, op is facing a difficult situation and one she was not expecting. I don't think she is thinking straight . She has already rang Acas for advice on a discrimination case before looking for advice on this thread.
I can't see she has a case as shes been offered her old job back ( with tweaked title ) and a less stressful job she requested .
I believe she was under the impression any job she returned to would be on the same pay thus her confusion.

AlexaShutUp · 20/02/2022 09:12

@spudjulia

I am not insisting that my reading of the situation is right,

To be fair, you did say that your interpretation was the only sensible one.

Yes, because I have repeatedly asked what else it could mean when the employer said that she could have her old job back, and nobody has suggested any alternative interpretations of this. I am very open to accepting that I might have misunderstood, but I still have no idea what else the employer could have meant by that statement, particularly when it was offered up as an option when the OP queried the drop in pay for the less responsible post and asked about her maternity rights.

If you could tell me what you think they might have meant by it, I would be interested. So far, nobody has answered this.

spudjulia · 20/02/2022 09:17

@AlexaShutUp I really have tried. I've copied and pasted bits of the OPs posts that led me to understand it the way I have. I've repeatedly answered your questions, rather than walk away from the thread - which I probably should have done by now for my own sanity.

I understand the OPs posts one way, you understand it another. There are other posters who see it your way and others who've interpreted it the same way I have. I think any further discussion is pointless as the OP vanished long ago!