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.

I feel sorry for her and I don’t feel sorry for you.

Your behaviour is odd.

Agree with what others have said…they are keeping one role, not one specific person.

this is all nice and lovely, but who actually does the work? Isn't
this the most important part of the question?

OP its not unair to dismiss someone on the grounds that they are unfit to actually perform the job they were initially employed to do. People with illness and disability cannot be dismissed specifically because of it but CAN still be dismissed if the illness or disability means they are no longer able to do the job. This is in no way illegal as long as the correct sickness absence process is followed.
in my DH business they usually start a sickness process after 3 episodes if sickness in a year and will move towards dismissal after 12 months of ongoing absences in some circumstances (not all, obviously!). Some organizations legitimately have different processes but irrespective I have a feeling they will be looking to dismiss you also- if you’ve not been at work for 6 months and no one is covering - the job has kind of made itself redundant!!

This. Ultimately if you are incapable of doing your job due to ill health you can be dismissed on the grounds of ill health capability. This is not unfair dismissal in anyway, and as long as your company have followed the correct process it won’t stand up at tribunal. The job needs to be done and you can’t do it.
Forget guilt about the other girl, I’d stop being smug and be getting back to work and proving I can do the job as soon as possible. In fact, losing the two others arguably makes your role even more important and it can’t be kept vacant indefinitely.

This is not interesting enough to be made up

Sorry, why is my behaviour odd??

My guess is that your job role is safe but anybody can apply for any job during redundancy. I think you’ve misunderstood. This happened at my work place. A contract was safe but the person was stripped of that contract & the 4 people up for redundancy could apply for that position. As for MAT leave. She’s protected. I was recently on MAT I would be upset too, especially if she’s been dedicated for a long time & someone who’s always off sick is safe. That’s not personal but that’s how the business will see you.

You shouldn't feel guilty at all none of it was your decision

The job has clearly not made itself redundant if it's the only position they want and need to keep, and I'm hoping to return soon

But why? You haven’t been there for ever and nobody’s covering it. It’s a non existent job if nobody’s doing it and it’s made no difference.

This is also what I'm confused about. It seems nonsensical. It's not the OPs problem obviously, but why would a company retain someone for a role that seemingly has no importance in the running of the business? Unless they plan to consolidate the three roles into one new role?

They do plan on consolidating all 3 jobs into 1 role 🙄

I do get why she's pissed off -not at you obviously, it's not your decision to make. It does seem unfair though. I hope you get to go back soon and continue getting better. The stress of redundancy is something nobody needs.

This

I am not sure that you can assume that the grade 2 job that remains is "your" grade 2 job.

It is naive to think your original role is the one that is required, post restructure, if it has been empty for 6 months without cover.

What is more probable is that the other two people have been picking up bits of it between them.

If your employer has genuinely decided that there is not enough admin for 3 roles and has combined them all together (as opposed to deciding that the grade 1 admin and the grade 3 admin aspects are not required) and the resulting role happens to be at the middle grade 2, then technically your original role is also redundant and the grade 2 role that remains is a newly created role.

They may be still considering how to remove you from your original post in a fair and legal way and just haven't made that move yet.
There is also the possibility of a second wave of redundancies.

So, it’s a new role then. They’re creating a new role with a new title. You won’t be “middle admin role” anymore. It’ll be “admin role.” That’s a new role, and they can’t just give it to you. They have to follow the law on redundancies and the law is that the woman in maternity leave must be offered an alternate role. They cannot keep you on and get rid of her when that new role is created. It has to go to her. I hope she gets legal representation. That role is hers, not yours.

This might be what they use to manage you out of the business, presumably the grade 2 role will change to soak up
duties of the grades below/above and they may genuinely not be able to facilitate your level of absence in post going forward. You might not even meet the performance demands if you do return if eg there won’t be anyone to cover you or hand over work during periods of absence, so even then it could be a genuine concern for capability as any absence would have more of an impact.

Also I think you’re a little bit naive OP, just because they haven’t hired someone to replace you whilst you are absent, it doesn’t mean no one is covering your role. It is likely that anything urgent, time sensitive, higher priority has been picked up and covered by your colleagues - they wouldn’t have left a pile of admin for you to deal with on your return to pick up where you left off? There would be some impact to the business such as an increased workload to the others if you are not there, no matter how minor you assume it is.

Surely it's obvious that you won't be getting the sole admin role when you're never there? How do you imagine that working? I would guess the consolidated role will be going to the lady on maternity, or possibly to the other admin person and a new position found for maternity lady. The reason you've not been notified of redundancy could well be because you are not eligible for redundancy (or the redundancy pay out) and will simply be terminated due to being incapable of doing your job. Out of the three of you I would say you probably have the most to worry about - the maternity lady definitely has the least.

@OtherS Agree.
It makes zero sense to keep the person who hasn't even been there for six months, as sad as them having cancer is, especially when they don't even have a return to work date.

I would not be altogether surprised if the employer is looking at ways to exclude the OP from the redundancy pool, which would explain why she's not currently "at risk".

When the employer says that "things will ultimately be resolved", that doesn't necessarily mean that the end result will be OP keeping her job.

The employer would be silly to say, at this stage, who is getting the grade 2 role and there's even a chance that the OP might not even want to do the newly created role if turns put to be full of things she doesn't like.

I think it is a ROLE that is redundant, not a PERSON. As in the company make all or a number of X level doing Y role redundant. The people who are make redundant, are the people in those roles. So when you say "the other 2 administrators at the level above and below me were put at risk. My role is to be continued." This I would say means that you CANNOT be made redundant, because your job is not at risk. Cancer (or any illness) is not a reason to make someone redundant. Even if it was sadly looking like you would never be well enough to return to work, I don't think serving redundancy where your role was continuing would work. There may be grounds to terminate you through lack of ability to work for so long, but this should be a separate procedure. Indeed I would think it would have to be a separate procedure because the reasoning is completely different. They probably could like terminate you due to ill health and then offer your role to a member of staff facing redundancy, and they may still do this. That though depends on the criteria for dismissing someone due to ill health.

The OP has contradicted herself somewhat.

She starts by saying her role "is to be continued" but she later says "they plan on consolidating all 3 jobs into 1 role". The latter would make her original role redundant and create a new role.

Therefore, there is no guarantee that she can't/won't be made redundant.

Also, there is no guarantee that the employer wouldn't manage her out of her original role via a capability process - which is a separate process to redundancy and potentially cheaper.

It is hard to tell what the actual situation is and how much is down to the OP "reading between the lines" or whatever.

So presumably you’ll all be competing for the role?

@stichguru but if they are consolidating the 3 roles into one, OP’s role won’t exist in its current form. And in that case the lady on maternity will take priority if my understanding on recent legislation is correct