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.

@Comefromaway

Job sharing in a senior management role which requires continuity is actually not often possible. It is a valid reason to say no.

I agree that you might have a case if they refused to reduce your hours in your old role and they can't adequately demonstrate a business need. But that's a pretty big leap and it sounds like they have been pretty reasonable overall, so there is no reason to assume that they don't have a valid reason for refusing.

Everything online talks about being entitled to the same pay and benefits

For the same job. Everything online talks about being entitled to the same or equivalent role for the same pay and benefits.

Talk about selective reading.

Come on, you're starting to sound like those people who think part time employees get paid a full time salary.

Why would pregnancy mean you should be entitled to be demoted without a pay cut?

nothing anywhere says about what if you reduce responsibilities/seniority

Because that's obvious? And not maternity specific.

Upgrade in responsibilities (promotion) = upgrade in pay

Downgrade in responsibilities (demotion) = downgrade in pay

Why would there be a special website explaining that.

I would say trust ACAS not randoms on MN.

If you are in a union ask them.

@Ohtheaudacity

Thanks everyone, I think my main issue is they’ve verbally offered my job to my maternity cover before offering me a viable alternative. Can they now rescind this offer from her and reinstate me into my old job? Doesn’t that leave them in hot water with her? Sorry if I sound clueless, it’s because I am 😂

I don’t think it matters what they have offered the other person as long as you can have your job back. I assume in this case they would have to have two people doing the job. You need to worry about yourself not what they have offered someone else.

[quote Itsalmostanaccessory]@Comefromaway

Job sharing in a senior management role which requires continuity is actually not often possible. It is a valid reason to say no.[/quote]
Depends on lots of things, you can’t really say that anymore with most roles these days. That’s why the OP needs to speak to an employment lawyer who can advise on the specific situation.

Custom and practise doesn’t really hold water these days

@Ellie56

Acas have told her she has a case because they have taken her job away and given it to someone else. They've closed the job off to her.

The OP has clarified that they have not. The company have been quite clear. Her job is hers if she wants it. The OP would start a case against them, it would begin with meditation, they would restate their position that her job is and always has been available to her and that would be the end of her discrimination case. She doesnt have a case.

What the OP actually wants is to have a demotion which she requested but to be paid her old salary. She cant have that. That is not discrimination.

She is entitled to the same salary if she returns to the same or equivalent role which is available to her. All she needs to do is take it. She cannot have the same salary if she asks them for an entirely new position which is a step or 2 down the ladder.

@Littlegoth

I work in HR.

ACAS are the experts, not the people of mumsnet. The issue is that they’ve offered your job to someone else before you’ve agreed to a new role. If you now can’t go back to your old job (should you wish to) and they need to ensure that replacement roles don’t disadvantage you, whether that’s financially, work life balance otherwise it’s potentially discrimination.

You are entitled to make a flexible working request doing your pre maternity job but part time or compressed hours. This shouldn’t be at least pay per hour, but of course salary will be pro rata to your working hours.

A verbal job offer can be rescinded, however as the candidate is already working for them this creates a problem between those 2 parties.

They’ve really made a mess here!

If you see above. They’ve offered her her old job back. But she said she didn’t want that. It looks like they’ve give it to both people the same job roles.

It seems very clear that ACAS have misunderstood the situation. I cannot believe that they would advise the OP that she would have a case when her old job/old t&c are clearly open to her. There is no evidence of anyone else getting preferential treatment. Only a vague idea that the OP's maternity cover may or or may not have been offered a job that won't impact on the OP's entitlement to her old job if she wants it.

@Ellie56

I would say trust ACAS not randoms on MN.

If you are in a union ask them.

Common sense should be called upon in the very first instance.

You’ve got no claim on the face of it - they’re offering you your old job back. It’s irrelevant what they may or may not have offered your mat leave. If you don’t want it it’s your choice but you have no loss, the job is there for you.

Are you sure you explained the situation properly to ACAS?

Because while they are happy for you to go back to if you want, there is no case.

I’m really really surprised you could honestly think that you should be entitled to a job with less responsibility but the same pay.
Presumably you would expect a payrise if you got a promotion with more responsibility so the reverse would be true when you take a step back

And ACAS can be great but also not! Law is always shades go grey but this actually seems pretty straightforward..

I really didn’t come here maliciously or expecting things to be sugarcoated. I came here because I was reading and being told one thing but wanted to get as many opinions as possible before starting unnecessary drama with my employer. I am not unbelievably stupid, just totally naive to this kind of thing and trying to do my best. I appreciate all the comments, every single one. I get the picture! Wishing you all a relaxing weekend x

Ok so everyone has established that you don't have a case - but re role.
A job share/PT only works if a role has clearly defined working hours in the first place.
I'm presuming that the reason your asked for less responsibility as well as hours is because as senior management, you can't work less hours?
If you worked long hours as FT there's no reason to think you wouldn't do the same as PT. Just less days. So you'd effectively be losing money (although I guess you're losing it anyway).

Your salary is lower, but is it cheaper than working FT and paying for your son's care? Where's the father?

Ultimately if you want a 'job share' type role a small company is unlikely to be the right place. They don't have a huge pool to share out the work (even then senior management is hard to delegate).

@Ohtheaudacity

I really didn’t come here maliciously or expecting things to be sugarcoated. I came here because I was reading and being told one thing but wanted to get as many opinions as possible before starting unnecessary drama with my employer. I am not unbelievably stupid, just totally naive to this kind of thing and trying to do my best. I appreciate all the comments, every single one. I get the picture! Wishing you all a relaxing weekend x

I am not trying to be rude, but you are senior management. Have you never handled a mat leave for someone who works for you?

Did you not consider that if we all could go back into roles with less hours and a drop in seniority and less responsibility and keep the wage, that the vast majority of us would do that after having kids?

I, genuinely, just can't follow the thinking that you thought you would keep the wage for less hours and less seniority.

@Imdonna I really truly have never handled a mat leave for any of my employees. I don’t want to go into my line of work but I would say probably about one in a thousand job applicants are from women of a child bearing age. That’s why sometimes I feel like I’m swimming against the tide. And why I asked for the advice.

Acas aren't allowed to give you legal advice - they can tell you what the law says and help you apply it to your situation, but they cannot give legal advice. I'd recommend you seek advice

I'm an employment lawyer and agree with the posters saying that if you have asked for a different role altogether, there's no requirement for them to accommodate this on the same rate of pay. If they were saying your job no longer existed and they were finding an alternative role for you, that would be different.

In terms of the Mat leave cover - I don't think the fact that they have offered her the job suggests that she is necessarily their preferred option - they just think you don't want it and it makes sense to offer it to the person who's been doing it for a year. If she's not been employed for 2 years it doesn't matter what they've said to her or offered her - they can let her go fairly easily and mostly free of risk

he here. they can rescind the offer to the other candidate and put you back in it - it's shitty but frankly the mat cover will have less service and the risks to the organisations are lower.

Alternative roles offered must be on same basis so same pay level and responsibility level. because you requested a less responsible job, I don't think it was unreasonable to offer you the lower paid alternative (assuming that what was offered was the correct going rate for that role).

You are well within your rights to say you have considered it and don't wish to accept this role and will either take your old role back or an alternative with the same responsibility, status and pay as before. albeit on fewer hours with flexible hours or whatever. they can then consider this and see what they can do - at the moment the ask has been less hours and less responsibility - ie they have perceived that to be another type of job

if job share is something you would consider, please tell them that. if you remain clear in your communication, firm but sticking to the facts - ie i don't want this, i will accept that then they will find it very hard not to accept.

good luck - these times can be tricky and stressful x

It’s just that they have offered my job to my colleague and although it’s not my problem how they resolve that situation, does that not demonstrate they have a preferred candidate for my job over me?

No, they offered her the job because you'd said you didn't want to return to it - that's not them showing a preference!

@Sunshineboo I would absolutely consider a job share, I will suggest this, thank you

As pp says there is no discrimination because the job is yours

You’ve been declined reduced hours due to business needs - they are entitled to do that

It’s ‘return to current role or leave‘ normally

They’ve been good to find another role for you. They could have declined all requests and you’d have ended up handing your notice in if your senior role doesn’t suit

Don’t bite the hand that feeds you they’ve done you a favour

The mat cover it’s not relevant and none of your business really

Job share is best bet but if the cover knows you can’t cope returning full time they may hold out and say no - knowing full well you’d likely leave and they’d get full time role

If I was them it’s what I would do as I can’t afford a part time role

Do you understand that you will still get less money? You'll be paid pro-rata for the hours you do if they agree to a job share. That means less pay but it is not discrimination. You know that, yes?

You also know that not all jobs are suitable for job sharing. If they say no, you can challenge that. Could win or lose.

I dont understand why you feel like you're swimming against the tide. Your employer sounds really good.

Your job is yours if you want it. You dont want it. You told them what you do want but they dont have that for you so they went and created a role for you, to your specifications.

They clearly want you back. They didnt need to create a new role for you. They did that because they want you back. It is actually going to cost them more than a job share or flexible working. They'll need to pay someone to do your old job and pay you for your new job. They're creating more expense for the company in order to get you back and this new role clearly isnt essential to them. They've made it just so you can come back and work at the level of seniority that you have chosen. That obviously comes with less pay. But it is what you asked for.

You're not entitled to the same pay if you request to come back to a different job. You're only entitled to the same pay if you return to the same role or make a sideways move.

It really sounds like they've done what they can to accommodate you. It would have been easier and cheaper for them to just make your role flexible working or job share. It sounds like that's not suitable for the job.

ACAS know what they are talking about. If they say you have a case then you do.

You should take their advice and follow it carefully b