To not feel guilty about maternity leave colleague

[NinePumpkins]

I have been off work due to chronic illness since November of last year - actually, my cancer was diagnosed just after I started in this job about 4 years ago, so my whole employment has been blighted by my illnesses (cancer now in remission, other stuff going on). Nevertheless, I enjoy the job when I'm able to do it - it's an administrative position.

Recently, redundancy proposals were announced at my company, and in my team the other 2 administrators at the level above and below me were put at risk. My role is to be continued. I've now heard it on the grapevine that one of the others, currently on maternity leave, is annoyed about the whole situation, and frustrated that we weren't all put in a pool for redundancy?? I'm sorry she's heard the news while on mat leave and sure that it's stressful, but I'm confident I can return to my position. AIBU for not feeling guilty about it? I'm not sure when I'm going to be able to return, and am currently on unpaid sick leave, but I know things will ultimately be resolved.

They are different roles though on different grades. I’ve never been through a redundancy process but I’m wondering if this is why all three weren’t put in a pool together.

Same.

If I were the colleague I'd be questioning why all 3 weren't up for redundancy if you all do the same role.

Just because it's "your role" that has been stated as safe, it doesn't guarantee that it will be you who performs it in future, especially if you've been off sick for so long.

I would be more worried about my role than you appear to be, if I were you.

My guess is that they’ll mange you out after doing the redundancies, then they can get rid of you without paying redundancy pay and they can hire someone else later on without being forced to offer the position to the woman in maternity leave.

There's currently no one covering my role
Then how does your role actually exist? How can nobody have done that role for 6 months and for it to be viable?

This, op. Especially since you said nobody is covering your role.

I think they do understand, but also know it’s pretty easy for this to be tweaked so the company gets rid of people they don’t want. It’s happening where I work now. All the pretty useless management seem to have very safe jobs, strangely.

Im with PP who say you need to worry about you. MAT leave colleague has protection. You have had significant sick leave. As awful as it sounds, it's far cheaper for them to manage you out on capability grounds as they won't need to make 3 redundancy payouts. Or keep you on, pile 3 loads of workload on you and wait for you to leave or be unable to do it due to health reasons. This way they are paying 2 redundancy rather than 3.

Are they perhaps expecting MAT leave colleague to ask for part time on return? Then seeing if you would accept the other half of the role? It's still 1 admin job but now a job share. Is that something you would be open to?

It’s not necessarily the person they’re saving it’s the role. There are three grades of admin role and OP’s is in the middle.

The Mat Leave colleague is the highest grade so presumably highest paid - so makes financial sense to get the work done cheaper when the roles merge.

The third colleague must be the most junior and cheapest. And she’s the one currently in the office covering and getting great experience. In an ideal world, if she’s proven her capability, you’d keep number three and bump her up to the higher grade with a small pay rise.

Legals aside obviously as they can always be worked around.

Struggling to understand what sort of company has admin staff at several different grades - so clearly important. But also, can afford for people going off sick for months and months, with no cover. What's your work even there for then.

OP, there's nothing for you to feel guilty about, but you shouldn't feel secure in your employment. You might be managed out on capability grounds with no redundancy pay.

You’ve called it.

So yours is being kept but no one is doing it because you're off indefinitely. Surely that means there's no admin and they don't need one. I'd be concerned about them making you redundant soon

This is exactly the thinking I've seen in practice.

YANBU but I can see her point and why she’s questioning it. That’s what her consultation period is for, to challenge the proposal and for your employer to explain & justify that decision.

I would stay well out of any gossip. It’s really not your problem or issue.

Is there a proper HR team or a redundancy company doing the redundancies or is it a small business doing their own thing? It will need to be managed carefully as MAT leave employee has rights, she only needs to seek advice from ACAS, her union or pregnant and screwed and company will find themselves in hot water. I believe there is something in employment law about if on Mat leave you have to be offered a suitable equivalent post during redundancy proceedings. It is likely your post will remain, but all 3 of you will be interviewing for the post. It could be that Mat leave employee asks for 2 or 3 days a week and then a new job share post is created.

Here's a question - If OP signalled a return to work soon, but requesting to use accrued annual leave initially whether to create a phased return or if that's not realistic, as a block of time at the end of sickness, would the company potentially then add her to the redundancy pool thereby perhaps she would at least get a payout over the alternative?

OP are you able to speak to HR about a phased return to work? Can you manage that? You need to be in the office defending your job if you want to go back.

It will be harder for them to manage you out if you have returned from sick leave.

It is possible to legitimately decide one role is necessary but others redundant. This is also used when companies want to get rid of difficult personalities at, say levels A and C. Say role B is necessary so they're all safe. And say you have one too many at levels A and C, so do a redundancy process with the criteria specifically chosen to keep the preferred members of staff and get rid of the difficult ones.

In this case, I suspect PPs are right and they're saying the middle role is necessary for now. Then in a "completely separate" move, manage out OP for her sickness, without a payout. Then just not hire a replacement.

I thought this too as otherwise what they have done makes no sense at all.

Not quite, here's how it works :

https://pregnantthenscrewed.com/redundancy/

The employee on maternity leave must be offered any available suitable post , without having to go through a selection process (unlike other employees). If one is available.
Suitable is defined as having the same terms and conditions as the old role, not necessarily the job description.
Also, this applies only if roles are available. They're not obligated to create one, where none exists solely for the purpose of keeping new parents in employment.

As all 3 employees are different grades one could reasonably deduce that their roles are not equivalent. Also one cannot make assumptions about the maternity leave employee returning part-time (hence making a job share 'equivalent'). If it is, it's illegal to make her interview , she will get it straight away.

I often wonder how this works in orgs primarily staffed by women of childbearing age..what if there are multiple people on Mat leave and a handful of roles...

Unfortunately that doesn't mean they're keeping you in that role, what if they invited all 3 of you to apply for the one role?

Exactly my thoughts.

Good grief I wouldn’t think my job was safe if nobody covered it for months and the other people doing it were up for redundancy.

It's the post not the person that's up for redundancy. If your the work for your post is available to continue then you won't be at risk. She will have certain protections in place even if her role is at risk.

I have been through this on mat leave and yes it's stressful but it worked out for me in the end.

If the company is choosing her due to mat leave then it's awful and I hope she gets good advice and wipes the floor with them but not for you to worry about and you have enough on your plate

Honestly I'd be more concerned about your own position at the moment. It's hard to read tone from messages, but you don't seem worried about your job and I think that's naive.

You say that you've not worked for 6 months and no one has been covering for you. As PP said, how is that a viable role within the company?

Women on mat leave have a lot of legal protection because they've historical been screwed over in this type of situation.

I'd be worried that they are instead planning to get rid if you via sickness or absence policy to avoid paying you any redundancy, but I'm cynical because in my experience companies will do whatever they can so save themselves the most money.

Struggling to see how your role is necessary if there's currently noone carrying it out and there hasn't been for 6 months?

I've been in your position. We all had to interview for the remaining spot. The person whose role it had been did not get it.