Rehiring for my job on a permanent basis while I was on Mat leave

[questionsss]

I am due to return from Mat leave ( 1 year ) soon.

I've just learnt that they've rehired someone for my position and don't plan to move me or them when I return. The role this person has, is only for one person and before I left ( it was my role obviously ). This person wasn't hired as a maternity cover or anything, just a full time employee.

I fear that this might be difficult when I return, as there isn't enough work for both of us.

Is this a normal thing for my company to have done ?

Well, if you don't share the full story, how can people help you and share the right information?

On the face of it, hiring two full-time members of staff to do the same job is perfectly normal and happens all the time.

If there are other issues then you need to explain that.

It doesn't actually matter if it's what would have happened if you hadn't been away though.

It matters that you've been allowed to return to an equivalent job of the same seniority. Are you saying that you feel the job is "less than" your previous one because the workload has lessened?

It doesn't sound like they have done anything wrong from what you've said?

I was once hired permanently to cover a maternity position. When she returned there was not enough work for the both of us and I ended up doing everything while she done nothing. A year later we were told we were both at risk of redundancy and she was let go. I would ask your manager why this person was hired as perm rather than temporary.

Being honest would be helpful, OP.

Isn't that easier, rather than harder? Half the work is not harder.

This happened to me & it was quite nice actually. I personally didn't see a problem with it.

@shammalammadingdong not in the role I'm doing. You need more work and more access to customers to be successful.

I'm not trying to be dishonest. I am just aware of sharing too many details.

The bottom line is that a person was hired on a permanent basis, in my absence. The person would not have been hired if I hadn't left. The fact that person is now there, is making my job much more difficult. That person also isn't happy I'm back and they now need to share stuff with me.

OK, reading your last comment... Is it that you've gone back, Johnny New Boy is in place, and you both have the same job title and role? But you can see there's not enough work or customers to go around, so either you have to grab the work/customers to show your boss you're still capable, or Johnny New Boy is making that impossible, and you're worried you aren't doing enough work/have enough customers so may be made redundant.

So, the question is, what are your rights if you fear you're being set up to be made redundant or to leave? Or is the question how to handle this with your boss and get more work/customers?

The person would not have been hired if I hadn't left.

How do you know this for certain?

Not quite true, there still has to be a very good business reason to not be able return to the same role. Just "we recruited a replacement" will not a good enough reason and will very certainly be discriminatory.

So you are back at work? There's sharing too much and then theres changing basic facts so as to make the post nonsensical!

Because it's obvious to see in terms of performance and visibility. There's no way that person was needed. If you compare the other hiring decisions etc. again, I don't want to go into specific detail, but it's a fact. Two people are not required in this role.

Well clearly they want you out then if there's no other explanation

In reality, this is to cover businesses if for example the business changes over that year, not to allow them to hire someone else into your role and push you into another. If the role still exists OP should really have first dibs on it.

OP I would get advice from Maternity Action.

The thing is, if you can't prove that they'd hired this other person without you going on maternity, you're going to struggle to argue that they've done something illegal or wrong.

Lots of jobs expand and it's very normal for businesses to hire an extra person when the role was previously suited to one.

OP this happened with my first job in the UK however I was the maternity cover. Coming up to the end of my contract, they wanted me to remain within the team and offered me a perm role to job share. They gave us a few other projecty pieces to flesh the role out a bit more. I think in the end, it actually worked really nicely for the lady coming back from maternity as it meant a less hectic role for her to ease back into the workforce while juggling a 1 year old and everything that comes with it.

It might not necessarily be a bad thing initially?

• that they wouldn't have hired this other person, sorry.

They would have had do hire other people too. Again, not wanting to go into detail.

Perhaps, and OP therefore has an excellent case for maternity discrimination.

OP surely you've asked your boss about it? What did they say?

I wonder if it's like, OP is in a job that requires a double act to work together (happens in my industry a fair bit - eg art director and copywriter, who typically work as a pair on a creative project) - and they only have one copywriter but now have two art directors, for example, which would be quite a weird dynamic.

Well, if you can't or won't go into detail then nobody can really give you any useful advice.

On the face of it there's nothing wrong with what they've done but if there's other vital information that changes that, all you can do is address your concerns with your boss or speak to someone like ACAS or "Pregnant, then screwed".

Maybe not right now. As it stands the company have just recruited an additional resource and op is doing her original role. That's fine. No discrimination here. (Although if op has far less work to do and is experiencing issues with the other person sharing workloads then potentially there's a question over this too e.g. the provision of suitable work)

What happens over the next few months will dictate whether theres a more clear cut case of discrimination. I predict there will be a downturn in work and a reduction of headcount is needed. Then its plain sailing for a discrimination case if op is selected for redundancy.

So you're in a sales-type role and you're now sharing a portfolio with the new hire?
Have you asked your manager how they see this working/was there a particular argument for having 2 of you in role? Do they anticipate growing in a new sector or geography/ are there new products or services coming through?

Have they allocated half of the portfolio each or asked you to divide it up between you?
Have your objectives been updated to reflect that you now need to do lead generation as well as work from an existing client book?