Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
AlexaShutUp · 19/02/2022 11:27

@nanbread

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?

If that was the case, though, what is the OP being asked to choose between? She said that she had been given a week to decide.
Itsalmostanaccessory · 19/02/2022 11:27

I missed out the end quotation there. But you know why I mean!

TheWatersofMarch · 19/02/2022 11:30

I guess that their dealings with your mat cover aren't really your business - you asked for flexible working on return from mat leave and they said no, giving you the option of your old job or the new role. It's up to them to deal with the fall out with the mat leave cover if you chose to return to your old job. I really hope you find a way through and I hope if you get any information and support you need with your child's health Thanks

HunterHearstHelmsley · 19/02/2022 11:43

@AlexaShutUp

If that was the case, though, what is the OP being asked to choose between? She said that she had been given a week to decide.

Whether she wants the demotion she requested, more than likely.

Honestly, if I were the manager in this situation, the offer of the demoted job would be off the table. I would have done that as soon as OP 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

formalineadeline · 19/02/2022 11:49

They are restructuring for the sole purpose of creating a new role for op per her request !

1 April 2022 is when op would be returning to work, hence the implementation date of that "restructure" being 1 April 2022. It has been designed for her benefit.

It's not some fiendish conspiracy to screw her over. They are doing all this to try and keep her. And in exchange she is causing trouble.

Not many employers would go to all this unnecessary effort to retain a member of staff.

Op has the choice of her original role and its T&Cs or to go into the new role she requested that they have created especially for her.

Op already works part time because this same employer already approved her previous flexible working request to drop to 28 hours pw.

Op has known about the deadline this coming Friday since November. She has had plenty of time.

Op is clearly spoiling for a fight and looking for someone to give her tips on how to do herself out of a job with an incredibly accommodating and supportive employer. Hence the deceptive posting style to manipulate the type of response she wants.

AlexaShutUp · 19/02/2022 11:50

[quote HunterHearstHelmsley]@AlexaShutUp

If that was the case, though, what is the OP being asked to choose between? She said that she had been given a week to decide.

Whether she wants the demotion she requested, more than likely.

Honestly, if I were the manager in this situation, the offer of the demoted job would be off the table. I would have done that as soon as OP 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[/quote]
Yes, the demotion is one option but what is the other? She said that there were two jobs to choose between. I think the other is a version of her old job on comparable T&C. Perhaps the OP could come back and clarify.

whynotwhatknot · 19/02/2022 12:04

What theyve said to the mat cover isnt your concern as long as theyve offered you back your own job

And tbf it isnt really a week to decide you asked this in january so you knew you might be working different hours /same and should have looked into childcare then

Imdonna · 19/02/2022 12:11

As per another of ops thread, she was fully aware she had until 28th Feb to make a decision on what she wanted to do, as she was considering be a sahp.

I have no idea why that date was floated, wether she or they did. Or its a mat leave led decision.

So a decision in what she was doing was due the Monday, after they have asked for her decision. The weekend isn't going to give her much more time. I am sure she could ask to wait until the Monday if it will make a difference.

jacks11 · 19/02/2022 12:59

I’m baffled by the idea this is discrimination. I can’t see how it is, even with the update.

OP asked for what essentially amounts to a demotion- less responsibility, lower workload and reduced hours. Her employers agreed to this and created a role did her- that reflected her request but (entirely reasonably) attracts a reduced hourly rate of pay due to the reduced responsibility and workload. It sounds as though they may have verbally offered OP’s job to the person who provided her maternity cover, on the basis that OP had indicated she did not want this job, but wanted the role they have created for her (although OP does not know exactly what form this offer took- it could have been a verbal offer or “ if x were to leave, would you be interested in staying on?”). OP then said she wanted the same rate of pay for the new role, which is clearly unreasonable- at which point they said she could go back to her old job if she wanted.

Whether they have verbally offered it to someone else does not impact on OP- unless they followed through and refused to allow op to return to her job. I’d be surprised if she could claim discrimination if she is able to return to her old role (or it’s equivalent), regardless of whether someone else was offered it verbally or not. Depending on what was said to the person who is her maternity cover, they may have a case or be entitled to compensation (perhaps not- it may be just notice pay)- but that has absolutely nothing to do with OP’s case. The only thing that matters is whether op could return to her old role, or an equivalent, on the same T&c’s. Her employer has categorically stated she can return to her old job, so no discrimination case, surely?

At some point in this process a restructuring of the business (or at least the part of the business OP is employed in) and her original role has been tweaked and renamed (effective as of April)- but it is still the equivalent one to the job she was doing prior to maternity. She has been told she can return to this job, which is equivalent to her current job.

What she can’t do is the new role but retain her old T&C’s. She has to choose old role (i.e. the equivalent in the new structure) and the higher salary that role attracts; or she can decide to take the offer of the new role which is what she asked for, but with the lower salary which reflects the altered responsibility and workload.

It’s not discrimination and it seems to me that her employers have tried to accommodate OP’s requests, within reason. It’s very foolish to assume that you can decide to step down in terms of responsibility and workload (albeit for understandable reasons) but keep the salary the same (or even the same pro-rata) on the basis you are returning from maternity leave. You are entitled to return from maternity leave to an equivalent role with similar terms and conditions, but you can’t decide/request to change your job to an entirely different one and keep your salary on the basis you are returning from mat leave.

I think it’s pretty poor behaviour and does not show you in a good light OP. I’d be quite frustrated if I was your employer. You do need to decide which role you want and let them know so they know what they are doing, going forward.

Rosebuud · 19/02/2022 13:09

Op, it’s clear you wished to work less in an easier job, with the pay of a more senior more stressful role and you felt having a baby entitled you to this. It does not.

You need to call it. Your employer is being incredibly patient with you. Much ti their credit.

If you can’t afford the job at a reduced rate then you need to stay in your current role and sort child care between now and may when you return. Try a child minder. There are many options.

AlexaShutUp · 19/02/2022 13:18

To be fair to the OP, it sounds like she is still coming to terms with the realities of having a child with additional needs. Maybe the stress of all that has clouded her judgement and prevented her from thinking about this in an entirely reasonable and rational way.

MabelsApron · 19/02/2022 13:20

I’m genuinely flabbergasted that anyone could think it maternity discrimination not to be allowed to do an more junior job but be paid at a senior level. That anyone could think that it would be discrimination not to pay someone more money to do an easier job, simply because they’ve reproduced.

I’m a job where parents are paid the same as non-parents because they’re taking the piss and not making up their hours but I’m at least hoping that a disciplinary will come out of that.

Honestly, mind boggling.

Imdonna · 19/02/2022 14:06

@AlexaShutUp

To be fair to the OP, it sounds like she is still coming to terms with the realities of having a child with additional needs. Maybe the stress of all that has clouded her judgement and prevented her from thinking about this in an entirely reasonable and rational way.
I do think that could be part of it. But I still can't understand how OP has forgotten that her wage went down when she dropped from 40 hours to 28 hours after the birth of her first.

Or that she handled her own maternity leave the first time.

Shelby2010 · 19/02/2022 14:35

So to summarise they have said you can either have:

  1. Old role on same salary - but have refused request for reduced hours
  2. New role with less hours & responsibility but lower salary to reflect this

However, they have now effectively said that due to restructuring your old role won’t exist in June. The equivalent role will have more support & less stress than your old role. But they haven’t offered this as an option for you they appear to intend it for your mat cover.

I think the main question you have to decide is whether you are able to go back full time. If part-time is essential then you will have to accept the lower paid role.

However if you think you could cope with the new restructured role full time, then you need to ask your employer if that is the role you will be given should you opt to return to your previous position. If they start to bullshit you, then tell them that you have decided to take up your previous role & see what happens. Unless you opt for a new (part-time) contract they have to take you back in a role with similar pay & conditions.

formalineadeline · 19/02/2022 15:54

Op was already working part time on 28 hours. She wouldn't have to do full time in any scenario here.

spudjulia · 19/02/2022 18:02

[quote Itsalmostanaccessory]@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.[/quote]
That's not what I've read at all, but I'm definitely not going to argue about it when the OP can't be arsed to come back and clarify.

My understanding is that there is a choice between the 'demoted' job with fewer hours and less pay, and that her 'old' job (head of sales) is being replaced during restructuring (to sales manager) and that is for less pay - her maternity cover has been offered the other sales manager role.

Itsalmostanaccessory · 19/02/2022 18:09

@spudjulia

The OP already clarified this though.

She asked for a demotion. They gave her it. She complained about the lower pay. They told her she could still have the job equivalent to her old one st the higher pay level, or she could have the demotion she asked for. She had a week to choose.

That isnt I for debate. The OP was quite clear.

Because she asked for a demotion, they've said she could have one of the new lower positions and the maternity cover will stay on in the senior role. When the OP complained, they said the senior role could be hers if she wants to come back to it. She just has to pick.

There is no discrimination here.

spudjulia · 19/02/2022 20:02

@Itsalmostanaccessory not true. The OP updated and said her current (pre maternity) job had been tweaked. She specifically said her old job would be unavailable from 1st April.

AlexaShutUp · 19/02/2022 20:08

[quote spudjulia]@Itsalmostanaccessory not true. The OP updated and said her current (pre maternity) job had been tweaked. She specifically said her old job would be unavailable from 1st April.[/quote]
She did, but as she also said that they had told her that she could have her old job back, and she isn't due back before 1 April, it seems clear that she is being offered the equivalent of her old job in the new structure. There is no other sensible way of interpreting this.

brainhurts · 19/02/2022 20:20

I think op refused her old job back , not realising it was being tweaked in April. She asked for a demonstration that was facilitated. Op has now realised the new tweaked job is actually what she wants . She has been offered every job so therefore no discrimination. I strongly suspect op is looking for a pay out .

brainhurts · 19/02/2022 20:21

Demotion not demonstration

formalineadeline · 19/02/2022 20:40

[quote spudjulia]@Itsalmostanaccessory not true. The OP updated and said her current (pre maternity) job had been tweaked. She specifically said her old job would be unavailable from 1st April.[/quote]
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?

1 April is not a random date, it's when op is due to return from maternity leave.

Op has asked previously about becoming a SAHM. It reads like she's trying to manufacture a situation where she can get a payout to fund that.

Imdonna · 19/02/2022 20:47

Op isn't clarifying. And tbh, alot depends on her wording when she spoke to them.

If she told them, she could not/would not come back into her own job (maybe in an attempt to force their hand), it's likey they (rightly) took that as refusing her old job back. At which point, they can look at replacing her/changing the job/reducing the wage etc. She says that she would take her old job back if she had to. But it really depends on how she communicated this to them. If she did tell them she can't/wont come back into that role she is in a very difficult position.

Op said in her first post that mat leave ends in May. 8 weeks from the 26th Feb is the end of April, which is (likely) why they need a decision soon so she can give them 8 weeks notice of returning. She would have had to make a decision around then anyway.

She has had more than 26 weeks, so they don't have to give her an identical job. They have offered her the tweaked position (wage unclear) and one that was exactly what she requested. Less senior and less hours. Op was fully aware they had a business case for not, allowing her to drop her hours further as she had tried this before she went on Mat leave.

If she did tell them she would not come back into her own role, I don't think they even have to offer the tweaked position or the same wage. Though I could be wrong there.

But again, op isn't clarifying. Given that she already has had a drop in income after returning from mat leave on less hours, I just don't believe she really thought she would get to keep her wage and do less hours and a less senior job.

DixonD · 19/02/2022 21:07

I don’t think you can ask for a less senior role and expect the same “senior” salary.

That’s like changing from a top consultant to a nurse and expecting the same pay.

HTH1 · 19/02/2022 21:12

@Merryoldgoat

I don’t really see how this is discrimination?

You can have your job back

You want a job with less work and responsibility - surely you’d expect a lower salary in that case?

Was your expectation that you’d get a job with less work but the same money?

This.
Swipe left for the next trending thread