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.

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.

For ease of reference. The OPs job has been "tweaked" and shared between 2 people and pay is less. That's against the law. A woman can return to her job after 52 weeks maternity leave to a similar job - similar being the same pay and conditions.

[quote spudjulia]**@Imdonna* read the update after midnight. The restructured* role is for less pay. Her old job won't exist after April.

Read my point 1 for an answer to your last question.

[/quote]
Op is reading that it's lesser paid from tbe restructure doc. That doesn't mean if she takes this option her pay will be lesser.

A restructure doc, is generic. It will not be specific to the op.

Still dont get wethwr you believe that if op takes the detonation you think she should be on the same pay.

Op has been off longer than 26 weeks which changed what they have to offer her. After 26 it's into additional maternity leave Maternity actions advise.

However, if your employer can show that it isnot reasonably practicable for you to return to the same job, you are entitled to be offered a suitable alternative job on similar terms and conditions.

Note the words similar. Op is being offered an alternative role and may be offered similar terms and conditions.

@Ohtheaudacity

So, I have somewhat of an update (yes I know it’s late but I’ve just checked my email…)

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!

I'd ask them the question directly, OP, eg. "I thought that role was coming to an end on 1/4/22. I won't be back from mat leave until June. Please could you clarify what role you are anticipating that I will be returning to in June."

I think there's been a real lack of clarity in communications between you and your management/HR, tbh. I'd be minded to put everything in emails from now on so that there's a record, and that everyone is clear about what both sides are asking for and expecting.

If your current role won't exist when you return, that is mat. discrimination imo. One part of the organisation I work for had a real habit of messing people about when they returned from mat leave because they preferred their mat cover in the role. They kept their grade, salary and often identical job titles, but delivering different projects. Sometimes it wasn't a problem, and in a few cases the employee preferred the new role, but in several it meant working from a location that was less convenient for them and some staff left as a result.

[quote spudjulia]**@Imdonna* read the update after midnight. The restructured* role is for less pay. Her old job won't exist after April.

Read my point 1 for an answer to your last question.

[/quote]
No, the way I read it, there are 2 new roles and the OP is being asked to make a choice between them.

One is a slightly tweaked version of the OP's original role, presumably on the same T&C as she was on previously, but with a bit more of a structure below her than she has had to date. When they are saying that she can go back to her "old role", it is essentially this position. Her old role but with a bit more support in place.

The other choice is a lesser role, supporting the person in the old role, which is in line with the OP's request for a demotion. The pay and hours are less, but the OP does not have to accept these terms if she doesn't want to, as she can still go back to her old role (or an equivalent version of it) if that is what she chooses.

I think by detonation you mean demotion. And as I wrote in my first post point 1 - if you request and accept a role with less hours and less responsibility, it won't necessarily be at the same pay.

I've also copied and pasted the definition of "similar', which means it must be on the same pay and conditions.

No, the way I read it,

Well maybe the OP can confirm.

Regardless, she's allowed by law to return to a similar role with the SAME pay and conditions.

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!

This is possibly key in understanding what the OP meant. Her 'old' job won't exist anymore.

@spudjulia

No, the way I read it,

Well maybe the OP can confirm.

Regardless, she's allowed by law to return to a similar role with the SAME pay and conditions.

Yes, we all know that.

But that assumes that the OP will go back to the same job or its equivalent, not a less senior role with less responsibility. In this scenario, she has been given a choice between the two.

What the OP seems to have been expecting is that she could go back to a lesser role while keeping the same pay and conditions. That isn't an option and it doesn't have to be.

@spudjulia

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!

This is possibly key in understanding what the OP meant. Her 'old' job won't exist anymore.

So what do you think they mean when they say that she can go back to it?

I think they mean that there is an equivalent job in the revised structure that is open to her if she wants it. What else could it mean?

@spudjulia

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.

For ease of reference. The OPs job has been "tweaked" and shared between 2 people and pay is less. That's against the law. A woman can return to her job after 52 weeks maternity leave to a similar job - similar being the same pay and conditions.

But that's only if OP accepts those terms and takes the new, lesser job?

It sounds like the "sales manager" role the mat leave cover has been offered is the equivalent of her old role, but with less of the take home work, making it potentially more doable for OP, and possibly on the same pay.

Now the employer may have "tweaked" the job role and changed job title as part of a faux restructure, in order to get round the obligation of offering OP her old job back...

However, legally they are on thin ice as this job is the closest equivalent to her old job therefore she should be offered it first - not the cover.

Making her redundant while on mat leave and giving her cover the job also leaves them on v v thin ice, legally.

They would be v unwise to do either of these, until OP has confirmed she doesn't want the old job back.

If I were OP, I would tell them you PLAN to take the "head of sales" role which by the time you return will have become the "sales manager" role, and formally confirm your return within the legal timelines, if you think the new role will 1. Definitely happen and 2. You could potentially take it on in your circumstances, at least in the shorter term. You could then explore job share etc.

I would also start looking for another job with options for flexible or part time working, as the parent of a child with extra needs you will probably want/need it.

You have had more than 26 weeks off, which changes (slightly) what they have to offer you.

Well, not much tbh. It should be a similar job - as similar as they can get it.

I.e. they cannot really offer the cover the "sales manager" role that's MORE similar to OP's old one but not identical.

My old employer tried this, offered me my same title/ role back but working for a different team (which I didn't want to work for) - while keeping my cover in my old team. One email later and I had my exact old role back.

@daisypond

What are you talking about? I've spent this whole thread telling her she is wrong and has no case for discrimination. What on earth are you on about by saying I'm wrong?

It seems that the employer has repeatedly stated that the OP can have her old job back if she wants it, so I suspect that they are well aware of her rights coming back from maternity leave and I don't think they are going to try and deny her these rights. They have just offered her an alternative option with less responsibility and less pay because that's what she asked for.

Regardless, she's allowed by law to return to a similar role with the SAME pay and conditions

No one is disagreeing with that. But OP said she wants less responsibility. In which case they don't have to pay her the same. Why would they?!

However, legally they are on thin ice as this job is the closest equivalent to her old job therefore she should be offered it first - not the cover.

Its been offered to the op. She has first refusal.

From what I read her mat cover is being offered one of the 2 roles that will support.

Which is exactly what ops wants. Again, the restructure doc is generic. Theres every chance that op, as this has been a restructure during her mat leave will remain on the same rate of pay. That happens all the time. Jobs change, but the pay remains the same because the change wasn't requested by the employee.

Op needs to confirm what her rate of pay would be. Op already works part time. If she goes back on the same 28 hours, she would still be part time, less responsibility, same pay. Which is what she wanted.

@Ohtheaudacity

Wow there’s a lot of comments here and I’ve read them all although can’t reply to everything individually.

For clarification, I am not a chancer. Well I don’t think I am. I really don’t know how these things work and I had read the online literature and spoken to ACAS who had all backed up my feelings of being a bit upset. However I’m looking for as many perspectives as possible which is why I came here. The HR folk who have commented seem to think I am not being unreasonable but many others do… so I’m not really any clearer on what to do. 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?

I do think my feelings are clouded a lot by my sons health situation right now. It’s been rotten. It’s felt like setback after setback and today with my job situation felt like even more bad news.

I apologise if I came across as entitled or lazy, I’m just a mum trying to do right by my family.

Butl doesn't thm having created a new role for you, a whole new job, prove that they've gone over and above to retain you?

Haven’t read the whole thread and don’t want to comment on the legal aspects as not qualified to go so
But as I understand you said you wanted 2 things
Less hours
And
Less responsibility

The first would be a flexible working request but for your current role - you didn’t appear to ask for that ? ( which they could refuse£
The second would imply a less responsible role which would usually come with less pay per hour

Or you could go back full time to the same or similar role with same and terms - which do you actually want?

Because it seems unreasonable you want less responsibility for same ( pro rata) pay and your employeets are trying to accommodate you

@Asiama

It's not maternity discrimination. They have said you cab had your old job back.

The fact that they have offered it to your maternity cover is a red herring. Any problems this creates is between your employer and the cover.

I work in HR and agree with this. If your employer has already offered your old job to the other person but this is on the basis of you having said you don't want and have confirmed you still have a choice between your old job and the new one, then the problem is between your employer and the other person and is not one of maternity discrimination towards you.

Although the advice from ACAS may be technically correct, I think it is too literal - yes, you have the right to return to a job with equivalent T's and C's to your old one, but that's not a free for all for you to reject your old job and demand a new one on the same pay.

From a pragmatic perspective, you need to decide whether you want your old job back or not. You could submit a formal flexible working request to stay in old job but with reduced or compressed hours.

@RockingMyFiftiesNot

Regardless, she's allowed by law to return to a similar role with the SAME pay and conditions

No one is disagreeing with that. But OP said she wants less responsibility. In which case they don't have to pay her the same. Why would they?!

Someone did disagree with it, which is why I re-stated it. Some people are confused about what 'similar' means in this context.

You wanted a role with less hours and responsibility - they created one.
They probably shouldn't have offered your current role until you'd accepted the new one - but then again you had already told them you didn't want to return to the current role.

I work as a finance director - I wouldn't expect to say 'don't fancy that, I'll come back and work part time as a finance officer' and be paid the same rate pro rata as the FD.

@spudjulia

You've misunderstood.

The OP's job has been tweaked and given a new title. It has the same hours and pay and seniority as her old job. They have confirmed that this is the job she would return to if she wants. It is hers. No discrimination.

However, the OP requested a job with fewer hours and less responsibility. She asked for a demotion. They have created two new roles which fit this and have offered one to her. It comes with less pay because it is a demotion, so she cannot expect to keep her senior salary. This is not discrimination.

She is entitled to return to the same role (or equivalent) at the same pay. She has been given that option.

She wants to return to a role with less responsibility instead. They've told her that yes, she can quit her old job and be given a new one. But she will get paid the going rate for stepping down the career ladder.

She is only entitled to the same pay if she goes back to the same job. And she has that option.

The problem is that she wants a demotion but wants to keep her higher pay. She isnt entitled to that.

She has to choose. Old job (which has been tweaked) with same pay or take a step down, as she asked, and take a pay cut.

There is no discrimination here, as long as they confirm that the team leader job is still hers if she wants it.

This is what I've said the whole way through but there seem to be a lot of people struggling with reading comprehension like @daisypond who seems to think I'm agreeing with the OP and I'm wrong. No idea how she came to that conclusion.

Why don’t you say you want your old job back, then if there’s a restructure going on there must be some kind of consultation happening if people’s jobs are changing. Or if not, then maybe you’ll get part of what you’re looking for - less responsibility as it will be shared with another role.

This is just very odd

Op. Can I have a role with less hours and less responsibility
Employer, yes would you like this one, we can create it for you
Op yes please, I don’t wish my other role
Employer, ok we will speak to the current cover and see if they wish to continue to make sure it’s feasible
Employer, ok here you go, this is what you wanted, pay is 6 an hour less
Op well I’m entitled to my old job or one at similar pay.

Um, yes you are. What you’re not entitled to is a less responsible job at the same pay just hecaude you had a baby.

There is no discrimination here, as long as they confirm that the team leader job is still hers if she wants it.

I think OP needs to clarify this - will the new job the old job is becoming in April, be offered to her?

As in her recent updates it sounded like it was being offered to cover?

It sounds like they offered it to the cover after the OP said she didnt want to return to that role.
Since then, she has conplained that they wont be paying her higher salary if she asks for a demotion so they've said that the job would be hers if she wants it. They just want her to make up her bloody mind.

Honestly, if I was her manager and I got an email saying, "as a woman returning from maternity leave, I'm entitled to the same pay (despite the fact that you offered me my job and I said no, I want a demotion) then I would just be really fed up with her.