To ask if this is maternity discrimination?

[Ohtheaudacity]

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.

Yes@spudjulia, I agree that further discussion is probably futile and it doesn't look like the OP is coming back.

I have read all of your posts but I still don't think you have answered the specific question of what exactly you think the employer could have meant when they said that the OP could have her old job back, if they weren't talking about offering her a job on the same level/t&c, particularly as this was offered when the OP asked about her maternity rights.

For me, the statement that she can have her old job back if she chooses seems to be of central significance to the question of maternity discrimination, and the absence of any explanation for what else this statement might mean seems like a glaring hole in your interpretation that I just cannot get my head around.

Anyway, like you say, further discussion is probably pointless so let's agree to disagree. I wish the OP well if she does come back and hole that she manages to arrive at a solution that is workable for her family!

@Chestofdraws it's no longer clear from the comments if the tweaked job is on the old money. I hope it is, she should clarify. Some posters here must indeed have the superior reading and comprehension skills they boast of 😂

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 he same way I have. I think any further discussion is pointless as the OP vanished long ago!

Well the OP is "senior" can't can't waste time here.

I have received an email from my manager explaining that my maternity cover has not “technically” been offered my exact job role/title. They have tweaked the role slightly and changed the job title slightly (think “head of sales” to “sales manager”). 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. Does this change things? Does this help my case? They are still, confusingly, saying that I can return to my old job if I choose, while in the next breath saying that job will cease to exist from 1st April 2022. I’m so confused!

In for a penny....

The above post was the update from the OP.

All of her posts prior to this seemed to indicate there was an option of a new, non-managerial role on offer, as OP had requested, at much less pay (she said £6ph less I believe). Or, the company had confirmed that she could go back to her old job. No problems, no discrimination, but the OP was concerned that the company appeared to have already offered her old job to the mat cover, despite OP not having chance to consider the new role. So in my very first post I said that (paraphrasing) 1) offering a new role with less responsibility at your request, at less pay is not discrimination, and 2) if they've offered your old job to someone else, that's the companies issue to sort out, because by law you can go back to your old job (or similar job, with same pay and conditions).

Then in her update, OP seemed to clarify the issue of the mat cover being offered her old job. She said that wider company restructure, coming into effect on April 1st (before she returns to work) means her old job (head of sales) has been tweaked and split into 2 (sales managers) and the mat cover has actually been offered one of those managerial roles, and OP can slide straight back into the other parallel one, which is SIMILAR to her old job, but at 'lesser, worse pay' as she describes it.

She says further down that she is confused as they are still claiming she can go back to her old job, but in the next breath saying the old job (head of sales) doesn't exist by the time she is due to return to work, following the wider company restructure.

So my understanding is that she is now being asked to choose between returning to work on lesser hours, lesser paid non-managerial job that she originally enquires about, or a job SIMILAR to her old job, one of the sales manager jobs, which is also now less well paid than her original head of sales job (which no longer exists).

I sincerely hope that clarifies my understanding of it for you, because I've put way too much energy into this when the only person who can clarify the actual situation is the OP.

I'm happy for you to have your own understanding of it. I'm happy for anyone to interpret someone else's post however they want. I'm not happy to have people be rude about my ability to read and understand just because I've understood it differently (and I'm not directing that at you).

Going to try to leave it there unless the OP comes back to clarify. I hope she does!

Sorry, my above post was for @AlexaShutUp

@spudjulia

Then in her update, OP seemed to clarify the issue of the mat cover being offered her old job. She said that wider company restructure, coming into effect on April 1st (before she returns to work) means her old job (head of sales) has been tweaked and split into 2 (sales managers) and the mat cover has actually been offered one of those managerial roles, and OP can slide straight back into the other parallel one, which is SIMILAR to her old job, but at 'lesser, worse pay' as she describes it.

If this is the case wouldn't her old job be subject to redundancy?

@brainhurts I imagine as OP has taken over 26 weeks mat leave, there's no requirement to offer her the old job back. The only requirement over 26 weeks is a similar job, but by similar, it must be the same pay and conditions.

I'm definitely not a legal expert though. I've done some work at union rep in the past, but that was voluntary and I'm definitely not an expert.

@spudjulia
Thanks for your insight .
I read is as she has been offered her old job back ( tweaked title, same pay until op clarifies this ) or a lesser paid job . If she has been offered her old job but at lesser pay surely she should of been consulted , or does this not happen due to more than 26 weeks maternity

OP, some people can be such shits on here.

There is some good advice on here but it's hard to weed it out from all the dross.

Do keep speaking to ACAS; and the very best of luck with your little son XxX

@yourestandingonmyneck

OP, some people can be such shits on here.

There is some good advice on here but it's hard to weed it out from all the dross.

Do keep speaking to ACAS; and the very best of luck with your little son XxX

But ACAS are giving her false information.

@brainhurts oh it's definitely not legal to change her old job to the extent it's less pay. She is entitled to at least her old pay and conditions.

@spudjulia
Without op clarifying anything I'm at a loss . My understanding remains the same she's been offered her old job at her old pay . If her old job is now lower paid it's a different situation however if it's a company wide restructuring there must be people equivalent to op downgraded to .

@spudjulia, thanks for explaining. I read a little differently from how you do, but I at least now have a better idea of where you're coming from.

You mentioned that the OP's original role seems to have been split into two lesser paid roles, whereas I think there are 3 roles in the new structure, based on what the OP said here:

the restructure doc that I’ve been reading takes away some of the more time consuming and stressful parts of my current role and distributes tasks to two sub-team leaders (one of whom would be me in their vision!).

So I think there will be one team leader role (on an equivalent salary to the OP's old role) and two subteam leader roles (on lower salaries). I think the employer initially assumed that the OP would not want the team leader role, based on her previous request to reduce seniority/responsibility. They therefore anticipated that the mat cover might want to take the team leader role while the OP slotted into one of the sub team leader roles instead. The OP then made it clear that she wanted to go back on her old T&C, so they said that she could have the team leader role after all if she wished. She is therefore being asked to choose between the team leader and sub team leader roles, and has a week to indicate which she would prefer. By law, they must keep her old job or its equivalent open to her, but they don't have to keep the alternative option on the table for any longer than it suits them.

Anyway, that's my understanding of the situation but I too have spent far too long on this thread when the OP clearly isn't coming back!

@AlexaShutUp
This is my understanding too .

OP - whatever has or hasn't been agreed with the maternity cover has nothing to do with you so it shouldn't even factor in to your decision making, they've offered your job back so if you say yes, it's for them to sort with her.

Legally yes after returning from maternity you need to be offered your normal job or job with similar responsibilities and on the same wage.
However, you have requested less hours and less responsibility so they have done nothing wrong in offering you exactly that. It is less money per hour because you have less responsibility, if it was the same hourly rate, nobody would want the extra responsibility. If you were going back to the same job as before but on less hours then they would still be required to give you the same hourly rate for the hours you're doing. This isn't the case though, it's a different job. They also don't need to accept part time working for your old role if it doesn't suit company needs.

You have your options, you can take less pay for less hours and responsibility or you can take back your old job for the same pay and hours. If neither of them suit you would need to look for another job.
You can discuss job share but the company or the other employee may not want to do that and they legally don't have to offer any other suggestions. They have already been flexible offering you an alternative role

[quote AlexaShutUp]@spudjulia, thanks for explaining. I read a little differently from how you do, but I at least now have a better idea of where you're coming from.

You mentioned that the OP's original role seems to have been split into two lesser paid roles, whereas I think there are 3 roles in the new structure, based on what the OP said here:

the restructure doc that I’ve been reading takes away some of the more time consuming and stressful parts of my current role and distributes tasks to two sub-team leaders (one of whom would be me in their vision!).

So I think there will be one team leader role (on an equivalent salary to the OP's old role) and two subteam leader roles (on lower salaries). I think the employer initially assumed that the OP would not want the team leader role, based on her previous request to reduce seniority/responsibility. They therefore anticipated that the mat cover might want to take the team leader role while the OP slotted into one of the sub team leader roles instead. The OP then made it clear that she wanted to go back on her old T&C, so they said that she could have the team leader role after all if she wished. She is therefore being asked to choose between the team leader and sub team leader roles, and has a week to indicate which she would prefer. By law, they must keep her old job or its equivalent open to her, but they don't have to keep the alternative option on the table for any longer than it suits them.

Anyway, that's my understanding of the situation but I too have spent far too long on this thread when the OP clearly isn't coming back![/quote]
I'm not going to just retype this same thing so I'll just quote it.

There are 3 jobs.
The old job with a new title and a couple of changes to duties but same seniority and pay.

Then 2 new roles, lesser paid and less responsibility.

The OP asked for less responsibility so in their vision, she would do one of the 2 new roles and her mat cover would continue as manager. She complained about that and was told she could absolutely still come back to the manager role at her old pay. She has until next week to choose.

It really is very clear.