I’ve been replaced - Mat Leave ?

[ThatPunnyPeachFatball]

Hi all,

I’m not sure where to post this, so please feel free to move to the correct topic but I wondered if anyone has been in a similar situation ?

(Just to preface this, I have been in contact with my union/HR but I’m waiting to hear back from them.)

I recently had my back to work meeting with my line manager after having the year off for maternity leave. During the meeting, I was told that I wouldn’t be able to go back to my old role because another colleague had taken over during my maternity leave and that there can’t be two of us doing the role. I was told that this was because I’d had one years leave rather than 9 months and that they could also change my shift pattern because of this too. I was told I need to be understanding that the colleague has been doing the role for a year too.

I wasn’t briefed before taking maternity leave that this would be the case on my return. I have been through the maternity policy and nowhere can I find anything about changes to shifts and role because of taking 52 weeks of leave. My maternity policy states that “if you take off between 2 and 52 weeks leave you have the right to return to your old job, on exactly the same terms and conditions you had before your leave. If there are ever any exceptional circumstances here this is not the case e.g. due to a restructure, then we will already have been in touch with you to discuss this before your return.” I haven’t been contacted about any restructure too.

Can anyone help ?

I’d quote the contract back to them and say they can’t do that?

Thank you for posting. I’ve sent an emailing quoting the policy. I’m just confused as to why they’re saying returning is different because I’ve taken longer but didn’t provide any other details.

Hi OP, have you checked ACAS? It may be a grey area www.acas.org.uk/your-maternity-leave-pay-and-other-rights/returning-to-work-after-having-a-baby

Is defo do as the other poster suggested and tell your manager that the actions go against the company Mat Leave policy.

The legal position is:

If you go back to work after AML, you also have the right to return to exactly the same job. But, if your employer can show that it is not reasonably practicable for you to return to the same job, for example, because there has been a reorganisation, you have the right to be offered a suitable alternative job on very similar terms and conditions.

AML is the second 'half' of maternity leave, the second 26 weeks.

The terms you return on can't be worse than your previous role (so salary, benefits, seniority) and they need to show it's not practicable for you to have your same job back.

www.acas.org.uk/your-maternity-leave-pay-and-other-rights/returning-to-work-after-having-a-baby

Removing my comment because @doodleschnoodle put it better.

At the 1 year mark, they can only give you a different role if your original role doesn't exist any more. If the role exists, they can't give it to someone else.

To give them a tiny bit of credit, I didn't understand that myself. I thought they could shuffle you into a different position.

To take the credit away again, HR should absolutely have known.

They’ll probably go back to you and state you have taken over the 52 weeks or whatever to cover their backs, even if it’s 52 weeks and a day. They clearly want the other colleague in the role. So my question to you is, be careful as it seems your manager doesn’t want you there. Even if you win this battle, you might have a war on your hands.

https://www.gov.uk/employee-rights-when-on-leave#:~:text=Returning%20to%20work,Parental%20Leave%20(between%20both%20parents).

This states that if you take 26 weeks leave, you have a right to return to your old role - if you take 52 weeks leave, you have a right to return to a similar job that has the same or better conditions.

However, your policy clearly states something different - you should seek the advice of your HR support team.

Also, it is usual practice to cover maternity leave as a temporary position, making it clear that the employee covering the position will be redeployed at the end of the position - at least for the initial 26 weeks.

Was this meeting a 'return to work' planning meeting in advance of you returning or was it your first day back? Your employer should have been in touch if they wished to change your terms and conditions.

workingfamilies.org.uk/articles/the-law-when-an-employer-asks-you-to-change-your-hours/

The comment: 'I was told I need to be understanding that the colleague has been doing the role for a year too.' is a little odd, the conversation should be centered on you and your employment, the needs of the person employed to cover your maternity leave are not your concern. Legally, you do not have an automatic right to return to the same job, but you do have the right to return to a job on similar terms and conditions.

Sounds like they’re trying it on. they probably unofficially promised the role to your maternity cover, maybe hoping you wouldn’t return.
Hopefully your union puts them right.

What role are they proposing that you have instead, and what shift changes are proposed? You have a right not to be on worse terms, and it sounds like the meeting wasn't handled very well, but it's always worth considering if the change is actually better or worse before raising complaints.

I believe there was some change in emphasis in April 2024. Here is another link:

https://maternityaction.org.uk/advice/discrimination-during-maternity-leave-and-on-return-to-work/

"If you return to work during or at the end of AML (more than 26 weeks’ maternity leave) you are still entitled to return to exactly the same job on the same terms and conditions as you were doing immediately before your maternity leave. However, if your employer can show that it is not reasonably practicable for you to return to the same job, you are entitled to be offered a suitable alternative job on similar terms and conditions.
Your employer must be able to show that it is not reasonably practicable for you to return to your old job – this is unlikely to be the case, for example, if your maternity cover is still doing your job."

Your employer has an obligation to make 'reasonably practical' adjustments to ensure that you can be returned to your previous job and not to expect you to be understanding about the person who covered your job - who should reasonably have expected that this was a temporary position.

Good luck - I hope HR and your union step up.

https://maternityaction.org.uk/advice/discrimination-during-maternity-leave-and-on-return-to-work/

some good stuff here.

Thanks everyone for your replies. They’ve been really helpful. I’m currently on hold with ACAS to query this before I contact HR again. I just assumed that in the case of maternity cover it was standard practice that the contract for the covering role is labeled specifically as temporary and not substantive. I’ll hopefully get some clarification shortly.

Not a HR lawyer or anything but I ahve been involved in employing people etc and I think that they can do it if they are able to justify why its been necessary - such as the shift change thing they are claiming.
ACAS will be able to tell you for sure, or try Pregnant then Screwed

I understand you are stressed. You did not respond about what you have been offered instead, which would help to see if they are being reasonable or not. Not every change is necessarily to your detriment.

While ACAS says that they can offer you an equal/alternative role if you've been off for more than 26 weeks, OP's company's own maternity policy would appear to trump that.

It would be interesting to hear what they have to say when presented with their own policy.

In any event, the "replacement" job, even if allowed to be offered should not be on worse terms than before. I would say they're playing a risky game then changing your shift pattern too.

It’s clearly practicable for you to return to your old role and they are trying it on. The maternity cover does not have the right to keep that job.

Sorry I haven’t had chance to reply to everyone’s comments but I’m grateful for them. I’ve spoken to both ACAS and Maternity Action and they’ve pointed me towards what @ChateauMargaux has quoted. Both have suggested that maternity cover doesn’t qualify as being “not reasonably practicable” as the role still exists and there’s been no restructure to the business. They’d have to prove why it was not feasible for me to return to the role. They said it’s standard practice to advertise maternity cover as temporary too.

Regarding the shift changes, my line manager said they’d be in contact about them once they’d spoken to their manager. They said it’d be whatever suited the business’s needs because I’d taken 52 weeks of leave. My line manager also said he wasn’t aware that the terms of returning were different if you took 52 weeks of leave. The business has taken on temps to cover the busy festive period. I’d like to resolve it amicably. I’ll know more once my line manager has had this conversation with their boss.

yes "not reasonably practicable” doesn't mean "we've got another person in now so it's not easy for you to come back" as they seem to be interpreting it. In fact it's the opposite, if the cover is doing exactly the same job as you did, that's proving that it is practicable for you to come back on exactly the same terms and hours.

The "reasonably practicable" bit would only apply if, for example, during your ML, the business had shifted its core hours from, say 9-5 to 11-7, therefore it wasn't practical for you to go back to working 9-5 because the office/shop/organisation literally isn't open at those times. If the hours had always been 9-7pm, someone else was covering your old 9-5 shift so them saying now you have to do 11-7 isn't that - if anything you get your old 9-5 back, if they want to keep the other person on as well it's up to them to decide if they will change to 11-7 or if they'd rather leave.

Double check exactly how much leave you had as well, down to the day, if they are being pedantic about the 52 weeks. Including if some of it was annual leave rather than maternity or whatever.

I’d like to resolve it amicably.
This suggests there is still a role on offer, so is there any reason you are avoiding answering my questions about why you don't want it? It looks like you're saying no without considering what is being offered, which may be within your rights depending where on the 52+ week timeline you are right now, but may not be in your own best interests long term.

Have you checked how many actual weeks of mat leave you’ve had? Just thinking they’d look right plonkers if you had 51 weeks of mat leave and 1 week of annual leave.