Mat leave discrimination?

[JamesWonder]

Hi,

Would appreciate some advice please.

I’m on mat leave and recently found out that my employer had hired someone external into a job I would have applied for had I been at work/known about it - it would be a promotion for me.

I didn’t see the job advertised and they didn’t tell me it was open. Before I went on mat leave I made it clear to my manager I’d be open to cutting my leave short if any opportunities came up.

I read that the onus is on the employer to inform employees of promotion opps when they’re on maternity leave.

Anyone wiser and more qualified than me able to tell me if they’ve done something wrong, or if I’m just overreacting and it’s tough that I missed the chance?

TIA

because if advertised on intranet to which the op had access as an employee - this would be evidence that they did not discriminate

This job would be the next natural career step for me, which my manager knows. I

how well do you get on with your manager Op? have you spoken with her or have you heard about the new recruit via your friend?

Op accesses the intranet via a work laptop.

It wouldn't be reasonable of an employer to assume someone on mat leave, not working, would access a work laptop on a regular basis.

but if keen to change position within the company…. enough to be upset when not directly notified, then the onus is surely on the employee to take control of own career and check

Agreed. ACAS are the best on this

No, the onus is on the employer to follow the law, which is to ensure a woman on maternity leave is not disadvantaged.

As has been explained.

@trextape 30+ years ago c10k staff nationally but this was pre-computers and each location had c250-400 staff with local HR. We sent out office notices weekly to all staff on long term absence either sick or mat leave. Office notices listed all vacancies and promotion opportunities as well as changes to policies, T & Cs. A very paper based system😂

Prior to my retirement there was a national approach via a website that had two options for external and internal recruitment and promotion opportunities. Everyone could log from any PC, iPad, phone using a work email account to see all vacancies. There was a search facility.

so the onus was on the person on may leave to check the intranet postings?

as explained there is little detail behind the law in respect to this issue

Key difference is it could be accessed from any device and the company had 10k staff, so likely wouldnt be considered practical for employer to notify individuals. Instead, there was probably an alert system that pinged a notification to an employees nominated email address when it was updated. A lot have SMS alerts too.

A large company like that would also very likely have as part of their process evidence that they informed the woman to ensure she checked, and they'd be able to evidence/explain/justify why it wasn't practical to inform individuals directly. A company like op's size, not so much.

In this case, OP asked to be kept informed.

Not really, employers responsibilities in this respect are pretty clear ☺

That’s not accurate. Expecting her to log onto the intranet while on maternity leave could be discriminatory. She doesn’t have access in the same way as other employees because she’s not allowed in work, she’s on maternity leave. Expecting her to use the intranet as if she was in work is not a reasonable expectation. That’s why it’s good practice for HR to inform staff on maternity leave of any opportunities.

Like @Megifer said. The onus is on the employer.

how so?

a promotion is not any and all jobs across the company and all departments?

No it was on the Internet not the Intranet and you could set up an alert so you got a weekly list of potential vacancies.

Plus the onus is on all employees to check the Internet for vacancies.

so the onus on employee

sounds sensible to me @Harassedevictee

Your question doesn't make a lot of sense, did you mean to quote me there?

I find if someone is unwilling to learn, they just don't grasp it regardless of how much info is shared to help.

If you're genuinely interested buf you just don't understand the terminology, or your learning style is more self-directed, some basic Google searching could help but try to be unbiased e.g. don't rely on the one article that seems to back up what you want to hear if there are 100's saying different.

Also, EL is odd. There's the law, what you should do (best practice) which is often different to the law (tribunals can add 25% to an award if a company doesn't follow best practice, even if they followed the law) and case law/precedent. It can be confusing to experienced HR peeps, let alone a layman!

@trextape deleted as we were cross posting.

Definitely sensible and more practical/reasonable in a large company.

the op hasn’t confirmed yet whether internal postings are on the internal site to which she has access too.

if they are… then irrelevant whether small or large company.

So, tribunals consider each case on its own merit and will consider whether an employer acted reasonably in the circumstances. This means considering resources available, cost implications etc.

So yes, a large employer could possibly (depends on circumstances) demonstrate it wouldn't be practical to notify individuals directly. They'd evidence this by, I dunno, providing average numbers of mat leavers at any one time, that to do so would be unreasonably time consuming and costly, the system they have is accessible to all at all times, evidence they discussed this with the woman and ensured she knows to check etc.

Op has confirmed it is a smaller company, so more likely to not have large numbers of mat leavers, have time, resources and facilities for a manager or HR to give a quick tel call/email, and, not forgetting, OP made a specific point of asking to be kept informed. It should have been at that point the employer pointed out they couldn't actively do so for xyz (but make sure they can justify that of course otherwise they are just being obstructive).

if the op has access to an internal site and snd if that posts job vacancies
i would say this is reasonable
certainly when i was on maternity les e and knew that i wanted to keep an eye out for promotions… I checked the internal site for vacancies. My career. My employer had the responsibility for posting the job. I had the onus to be bothered to look for it.

Op out of interest are you not on particularly good terms with your manager and anyone at the company that a friend mentioned this to you after the person had been recruited (and actually even recommended by your friend)

You might say this is reasonable. An employment tribunal is unlikely to agree if accessing it involves using a work laptop.

can't believe someone these replies - they do have to tell you of any job openings while you are on maternity. Whether they wanted u to get the post is irrelevant as you can be disadvantaged by maternity leave. The right is to be able to apply should u wish to not the right to get the job as some seem to be getting confused with

My employer sends out a monthly bulletin to all colleagues on maternity/ paternit/ shared parental leave. They don't filter it for particular roles you may be interested or qualified for - just the jobs list which is really quite simple admin task

fair point

Don't know whether to find that funny or to be a bit miffed 😂

Megifer · Today 17:14
Op accesses the intranet via a work laptop.

It wouldn't be reasonable of an employer to assume someone on mat leave, not working, would access a work laptop on a regular basis.

trextape · Today 17:18
but if keen to change position within the company…. enough to be upset when not directly notified, then the onus is surely on the employee to take control of own career and check