Possible demotion after maternity leave

[GoldieLocks09]

I had my second DS in October of last year and have thoroughly enjoyed maternity leave this time around and not paid too much attention to what's been going on at work, unlike with my first DS when I felt like I had to have 'one foot in the door'.

I'm planning on going back to work in July and have started my KIT days, one of them being today - my manager (who is also the MD) asked for a meeting with me and was being overly nice, friendly, asking loads of questions etc at the beginning of the meeting - he is a friendly person but it was clear it was a bit OTT. For some background, our company was acquired last year and we're now part of a much much larger PLC, I've basically missed the whole integration whilst being on mat leave. At the moment there are 2 people who hold my job title (senior director level/leadership team) - me and my colleague, we've always worked well together and have been united across our departments. Due to the change in company, she was asked to cover my role whilst I was on maternity leave and has been looking after both departments for the past 8 months.

My manager/MD told me during our meeting that it has been decided 'from the top' that there is no longer room for 2 people to be doing that role (we both have the right to apply for it), and there is definitely another role available at the same salary, just with different responsibilties - as well as lots of other opportunities throughout the business. I think it's unlikely I will get the role we both can go for as she's been doing it their way for the last 8 months, and as much as I work well with her she does play dirty which isn't something I'm up for. The alternative role despite being told it was the same pay is a significant jump down in responsibility (I'll go from managing 8 to managing no one) and feels like we the job I joined the company doing 6 years ago, as well as moving away from being in the senior leadership team despite having 'director' in the title. And I will look into other roles throughout the wider business.

AIBU for feeling really hurt about this? Or should I just suck it up and take the lower position at the same pay and be grateful I still have a job?

You need to speak to Acas and 'Pregnant then Screwed' for advice.

Sounds illegal to me. Get advice urgently!

It’s a tricky one.

If they’re pooling two roles and reducing head count to one, then there isn’t much you can do.

But if they’re removing both roles and creating one new one, which you’re objectively suitable for, they need to automatically offer it to you.

It may not be objectively suitable due to the reduction in responsibility though.

I would start by asking for a job description of the two roles and do a gap analysis between your current role. This will be important no matter what you decide to do. Do not settle for a role with the same money but less responsibility, because that wont last any appraisal/bonus scheme.

we both have the right to apply for it), and there is definitely another role available at the same salary, just with different responsibilties - as well as lots of other opportunities throughout the business

You are on maternity so you have more rights.

You don't have your apply and compete for this role. They must offer it to you. Even if there is a more qualified candidate.

If they are suggesting that you need to apply, compete, be interviewed whilst in Mat leave them they are breaking the law.

Please call ACAS and get advice on the best way to handle this situation.

Unfortunately, due to the company being acquired while she was on mat leave, they indeed can make these changes and have both people apply for the singular role (having a fair and open competition by advertising the position is also best conduct – not sure if they are doing this). It’s effectively a redundancy and is allowed in a significant change of business (which an acquisition is), because OP’s old role will no longer exist. In the event of a redundancy or something like this, she is entitled to be offered a suitable alternative vacancy, but only if one exists – which it may not. It is also complicated by her colleague having already worked there and not being OP’s maternity cover.

She does not have to apply for position or attend an interview on maternity leave however, but it’s unclear if they are asking her to do that.

If I was the other person I'd happily take the same salary and manage no one. I previously managed a team, and although I was fine with it I found it draining at times when people could be my biggest problem. I stepped into a role with more pay and no managing responsibilities, it was the best thing ever to be able to just get on with looking after me!

@Didimum

Whether the company has been taken over or not doesn't affect her rights as a woman on maternity leave.

TUPE will apply.

She has the right to return to a similar role on not worse terms and conditions and in this case where her role is redundant and there is a suitable available role she has the right to be offered that role even if there are other better qualified candidates.

This is not true. It’s two roles down to one, one role is being make redundant. The company are allowed to have both candidates apply for the one role – if she is not selected, they just have to be able to show that this was not due to her having been on maternity leave.

The protection does not save you from redundancy, and the right to be offered a role of same salary without lesser conditions to your original role only kicks in IF she is made redundant. The alternative role she mentions is lesser in responsibility but not in salary, but she also mentions there are several alternative roles across the company – it depends what those roles are.

I don’t think anyone is disputing the fact that they’re entitled to restructure and make redundancies.

The point is that OP is entitled to be automatically offered an objectively suitable vacancy, without a competitive interview or job matching process.

So if they’re making both roles redundant and creating one role instead at the same level, she’s likely to be entitled to the job before anyone else.

This.
Plus, there's a special employment law thread somewhere on Mumsnet OP.
Also, are you in a TU? If so, contact them asap. And check if you have legal insurance too - it's often an add on people don't know they have to house, car insurance, etc.

No, the automatic role offering is only applicable IF she is made redundant. She does not have to apply or be in competition for the alternative role in the event of redundancy, but she does have to apply for her current role if they are making two roles into one, which they are.

If you have been on maternity leave for more than six months, you are not automatically entitled to return to the exact same job, just one which is similar - same (or better) pay and conditions. So the company does not have to declare redundancy or give you priority, if they are offering you an equivalent post. The main question here is whether the new post is really equivalent, if it involves managing fewer people, and you will no longer be on the senior leadership team.

Talk to your union, if you have one, or the other organisations mentioned. Maybe you can negotiate a way to make the new post more equivalent - perhaps developing some new policy or strategy, and remaining on the senior team. If you are able to tell them that otherwise your union think you would have a case, then that may encourage them to think again.

Alternatively, take the view that a slightly more relaxed post while your children are young might be no bad thing, and look for a move internally or externally in due course.

@Didimum

I completely disagree with you but we won't solve this here.

I recommend that OP contacts ACAS on how to approach this situation.

I do see what you are saying with these two roles turned into one. Is it genuinely two roles made into one role, or is it a brand new role? That matters and the responsibilities and conditions have to be considered to ascertained which it is.

The above poster is also correct that the entitlement to your same job only applies if you return within the first 26 weeks.

But it ISNT the same job. That’s the whole point. So the 26 week point doesn’t apply here. What applies is the enhanced maternity protection OP is entitled to over and above the other employee.

Please re read my post where I specifically
said “if both roles are made redundant…”

And OP herself says it’s an alternative role - not that they’re removing one employee from a pool of two.

@Didimum

I do see what you are saying with these two roles turned into one. Is it genuinely two roles made into one role, or is it a brand new role? That matters and the responsibilities and conditions have to be considered to ascertained which it is.

It 2 roles into one makes both at risk of redundancy. The role must offered to OO

If a brand new role and OP is at risk of redundancy? The new role must be offered to OP.

If OP is at risk of redundancy in any way and there's a suitable role she must be offered it.

The above poster is also correct that the entitlement to your same job only applies if you return within the first 26 weeks.

Yes I agree. I never said otherwise 🤷‍♀️
She has entitlement to a similar role on not worse t&cs.

I'm assuming they're going to wait until you're back before they do anything to ensure you're not additionally protected. But I have a feeling there's new rules about additional on your return.

This sounds like both jobs have been essentially made redundant and one role created, where you will both be able to apply to the new role.

If you are not successful, then you could apply to the alternative role being offered, or they'd have to pay you redundancy. How long have you worked there?

The fact the other person has been doing the current job whilst you were on maternity should have no grounding for favouritism as this would count as discrimination. They need to allocate the job to the best candidate based on merit/qualifications.

They will no doubt announce the redundancy on the day you return, but I don't think being on maternity will give you any more or less rights to the position.

I assume you're returning full time?

It 2 roles into one makes both at risk of redundancy. The role must offered to OO

What’s OO? OP?

If it’s two roles reduced to one then it’s just a headcount reduction and the company are entitled to have both people reapply for the job.

There are no legislative restrictions on the circumstances in which the job of an employee on maternity leave can be made redundant. Normal unfair dismissal rules apply in terms of whether it is a genuine redundancy and whether the selection was fair.

Specific protection in the decision whether to make the role redundant comes only from the Equality Act, which ensures that maternity leave cannot be a factor in the decision.

Once the decision to make the role redundant has been made, then specific protection from the Maternity and Parental Leave Regs kicks in, which provide that if an employee's role is made redundant while she is on maternity leave, and there is a suitable available vacancy, the employee is entitled to be offered alternative employment.

ie she gets special treatment if she is made redundant, she doesn't get protected from being made redundant in the first place

This, but I can't see a scenario where "pooling the 2 roles into 1" wouldn't equate to removing both roles and creating a new one. The merged role is a completely new role.

If they were making 1 department redundant it would be different, but in this case OP has priority for the new role as she is on mat leave.

The alternative role despite being told it was the same pay is a significant jump down in responsibility (I'll go from managing 8 to managing no one) and feels like we the job I joined the company doing 6 years ago, as well as moving away from being in the senior leadership team despite having 'director' in the title. And I will look into other roles throughout the wider business.

Sounds amazing, personally I'd snap their hand off to go back to work on the same salary, manage no one and keep my director title without any of the SLT responsibilities.

This. Not having to manage people would really appeal to me because I find it stressful having some reports who have attendance issues or who just won't be managed. A senior job with no direct reports sounds great to me.

They'll wait until you're back then screw you over

It is upsetting @GoldieLocks09, but unfortunately fairly inevitable I would think if one person has covered both roles for eight months.

Given your mat cover essentially created the role and performed to a standard that they have decided to make it a permanent change, I would assume she is getting that role.

I’d spend my energy on finding an alternative role that you would enjoy. A alternative that matches your salary and T&Cs is what the legislation provides for - I don’t think there needs to be a comparable JD. So see what’s available and what takes your fancy! It could be a great opportunity x