Restructuring while on Maternity Leave... Advice Needed!!!

[MummyDearest123]

I am currently off on maternity leave and the company I work for is undergoing some restructuring. There are 4 of us in my department doing the same job at the same level, but in there new structure there will be only 2 posts at my level. The 4 of us have to go through interview in two weeks time to see who will get the jobs, and the unsuccessful candidates will then fall into the pool for the next level down and will have to compete for those jobs. We have been told that no one will be made redundant, and employees who are unsuccessful (and therefore downgraded) will have their pay protected for a period of 3 years.

I am aware that Regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations states that if a redundancy situation arises, a woman on maternity leave should be offered any suitable vacancy without having to go for interview. However, I am not sure if this is applicable to my case as I am not actually at risk of being paid off, but rather displaced to a lower graded post.

Any advice anyone could give would be gratefully received. My little girl is only 5 weeks old and will not settle day or night. The sleep deprivation is really taking its toll, and the thought of having to prepare for an interview and potentially be downgraded is really stressing me out at the moment. :(

Hmm. Reg 10 doesn't state you'll get a position without having to go for an interview.

They can interview you but to see if a role is suitable not to assess you for that role in terms of do you get it over another.

However there are circumstances where you can make mat leave workers redundant. I.e. if there is a post done by 10 people and you need 5 you can include mat leave people in the redundancies. However if the 10 roles become 5 new roles then they get protection and should be ring fenced a role.

How long were you planning to have off? If over 6 months then they can slot you back into the lower placed role as they have to offer a suitable job not the same job. If they are protecting salary for 3 years I think you'd find it hard to argue its not suitable. Depends on the drop and what job is and will be etc.

So in your case as it seems 4 roles are becoming 2 then you can be made redundant from that role (unless these 2 roles are somehow different to current) and that the company would offer an alternative job on a lower status grade which could be considered best practice esp as they are protecting salary.

If they made you compete for the new roles then you could argue you would have to have one ring fenced as your competing for it against others.

So worst case scenario is that you'll get paid the same just doing a different job - but unless you refuse to do the lower graded job wouldn't be out of one. If you did refuse the lower graded job I'd expect you'd also lose and redundancy payments as you've been offered suitable alternative employment.

I now await Ribena to tell me that's all crap and I've got it wrong :)

Thanks for your response seeyoukay. The 4 current roles are being cut to 2 as part of a long term cost cutting exercise. As the 4 of us a currently doing the job, I would say that we are all suitable. The purpose of the interview is to compete for the jobs. I feel very disadvantaged in this situation, as I've been out of the workplace for almost 3 months, and also just don't have the time to complete application forms and prepare for an interview with having a newborn to look after.

It's not just a case of them slotting me into the lower grade job - if I don't get one of the jobs at my own level, I will have to go through the whole selection process again for the lower grade jobs, as there aren't enough of those either. So I could potentially drop another grade, which I would argue is not a suitable alternative (on grounds that it is much lower status and responsibility). Then after 3 years, my salary would drop like a stone!

I was planning to have a year off, but I would return after 6 months if it would put me in a better position.

I think the point seeyoukay is making is that, assuming the lower roles would be classed as suitable, they can't make you compete for those if your previous post is redundant. If your job is redundant and there is a suitable alternative available, then you must be offered it without competition. They may have told you you'll have to compete but they may be wrong about that.

There are two questions, firstly whether the original 2 (reduced from 4) roles could be considered as available vacancies. It sounds as though probably not. Second is whether the lower job could be classed as being 'suitable'. If it is, you should be offered one. If not, you can be asked to compete along with everyone else.

What have your performance appraisals and so on been like in your current role? I know it's a pain having to go through an interview but how do you think you compare to the other candidates?

If you are made redundant from your original job, if you want to be offered a job rather than compete again your best bet is to argue that the lower role is in fact suitable.

Oh dear, I'm confused. Why do you feel the original 2 roles cannot be considered as available vacancies, when there is going to be a selection process to fill them?

My performance appraisals have been glowing. But so have the others'. So I think the selections will be made purely on the basis of performance at interview. In that respect, I don't think I would compare well to the other candidates, as I've been out of the work mindset for 3 months, and really have no opportunity to prepare properly while looking after baby.

I think it's not clear cut. If it's literally 4 of the exact same job and they are just reducing the number to 2, then it's more difficult to argue that the 2 are vacant jobs, or rather it's easier for them to argue that they are not.

The fact that you are being asked to apply for them, rather than just being selected according to usual criteria, does help your argument, if that's the way you want to go, absolutely. By asking you to apply and interviewing you, they are behaving as though these are vacant jobs that they are selecting people to fill, rather than a straight headcount reduction.

But it's not clear cut as I say. What you could do is write, highlighting the details of Reg 10, saying that you are entitled to be offered a suitable alternative vacancy, you feel that the two jobs fit those criteria being suitable for you (as you are already doing it), and vacant as you are all being asked to apply for them, and until two of the four of you have been successful at interview, they are vacant available jobs.

But just be warned they may come back and say they are not vacant jobs and it will be up to you how far you want to argue it. At least writing will draw the legislation to their attention.