Discrimination findings forgot I'd been discriminated against!

[legalquestion1234]

I need some advice please.

At my work (kind of public sector), they delete your profile and take your laptop away when you go on maternity leave. It's impossible to see or apply for jobs without one and the workaround process they put in place meant I saw around 0.3% of the advertised roles that occurred while off.

I put in a grievance to say I'd suffered detriment as a result. I managed to gain a secondment through the workaround process, but I don't want to have to go through the interview process in a few months - I wanted a permanent job. In the "desired resolution" part, I put that
a) I would like a review of the upcoming opportunities to me made to remediate the detriment suffered and
b) the system and processes to be fixed for other people

They’ve upheld my complaint and done b) but the hearing manager said, as we didn’t talk about a) in the interview, she hasn’t addressed it!! But we didn’t address it because it was a bizarre interview and she didn’t ask.

They’ve now said I have to go through the appeals process, but I don’t think I should have to go to Step 2 before they complete Step 1!

Any suggestions for how to respond?

I'm absolutely livid, particularly as this is now going to take up loads more time.

Bump

I don't understand your point a. Are you asking for first refusal of upcoming roles?

I would like a review of the upcoming opportunities to me made to remediate the detriment suffered

What exactly do you mean by this?

I'm confused too - you want to see a list of roles before they are published to anyone else?

Sorry, I was summarising in a rush and didn't do a very good job of it!

Without going back to the document, I'd asked for steps to be taken to try to make up for the detriment caused to me personally. I'd suggested a couple of things, like reviewing the upcoming permanent roles in the area I'm on secondment in (as I've already interviewed and proven I have the skill set) or a mentorship, but I hadn't been specific.

The mentorship sounds like a good idea - is there a central register of potential mentors at your workplace?

It would definitely be reasonable for you to be made aware of upcoming permanent opportunities, but I'm not sure you could expect to be given a role without having to be re-interviewed (if that's what you mean) unless the role you are in becomes permanent.

Can you explain what detriment you have suffered. As I'm reading this you a) were employed when you went on maternity leave and b) remain employed and planning to return to work.

So whilst equal opportunities weren't met and their policy/process needs to improve - what actual detriment have you suffered that you are making a complaint about.

What is your loss?

This isn't clear.

@YoBeaches

Can you explain what detriment you have suffered. As I'm reading this you a) were employed when you went on maternity leave and b) remain employed and planning to return to work.

So whilst equal opportunities weren't met and their policy/process needs to improve - what actual detriment have you suffered that you are making a complaint about.

What is your loss?

This isn't clear.

OP should have been notified of vacancies while on mat leave and it sounds like she wasn't.

The detriment you have suffered is that you didn't have the opportunity to apply for** a permanent vacancy open at the time. There is no guarantee that had you applied, you would have been the successful applicant, and therefore no one can say with certainty that you have lost out on a job offer.

I don't mean to sound flippant, but the only way that this could be remedied is by going back in time, and in the absence of that, they have put in place other processes to avoid this happening in the future. I think regardless of whether you want them to fully go through step 1 or raise it in step 2, you aren't going to get far on point a, so it's probably a moot point whether you should appeal or they should review step 1

I understand the opportunity wasn't there, but the OPs posts don't explain fully to what detriment this materialised. The description of her employment is confusing.

This matters, as to likely outcomes if she takes it further and the best angle she can use to challenge.

@Asiama

The detriment you have suffered is that you didn't have the opportunity to apply for** a permanent vacancy open at the time. There is no guarantee that had you applied, you would have been the successful applicant, and therefore no one can say with certainty that you have lost out on a job offer.

I don't mean to sound flippant, but the only way that this could be remedied is by going back in time, and in the absence of that, they have put in place other processes to avoid this happening in the future. I think regardless of whether you want them to fully go through step 1 or raise it in step 2, you aren't going to get far on point a, so it's probably a moot point whether you should appeal or they should review step 1

But the OP says she is on secondment. You can't be on secondment unless permanently employed as it's a temporary change to your permanent employment. On secondment, your old job is still there for you when you finish secondment.

This is why it doesn't make sense and we need more info.

@YoBeaches I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean.

From what I understand OP was employed in a particular role. We don't know if that role is on a perm contract, FTC, zero hours etc. she then went on mat leave and lost out on the opportunity to apply for other internal opportunities, which has she applied and been successful, would face led to a permanent change in her role. The fact that she was not aware that these opportunities existed was because she was on maternity and the right not to suffer a detriment is not dependent on her existing contract with the organisation.

Have I missed something or misunderstood?

Because we don't have all the details on her employment , we can't assess what detriment has occurred to determine the situation fully.

If she was fully employed and remains fully employed on the same terms/pay/benefits etc then very limited detriment occurred and results in slapped risks for the employer on their process.

But if a more material impact occurred, such as on an FTC contract that would expire shortly after returning from
Mat leave then the lack of ability to apply for perm roles has had a much greater material Impact and the OP would have a stronger case.

So whilst the opportunity was (wrongfully) removed, the actual impact evaluation is key.