Maternity leave - denied p/t hours

[BrianAndHisBalls]

Hope someone can help me please.

I do the sort of job where late nights at short notice are quite common. I work for a massive multinational. I've been with them for 11 years.

Before I went on maternity leave (2nd child)I worked 31 hours a week (just over 4 days a week).

I had asked to go back on 22.5 hours a week (3 days). Had call today saying that they don't think I can do my job on 22.5 hours a week so will deny my request. They said I am entitled to go back on 31 hours a week as that is what I worked before but they made it quite clear on the phone that the job is very difficult part time and more travel is needed now (to London Im 2.5 hours away) than it was before I went on ml.

They have said they will send me any jobs to look at that are available, in case I want to go for one of those, alternatively I can go back 31 hours a week.

I rang hr to ask if redundancy would be available if I choose not to go back 4 days rather than 3. They said probably not as they are still offering the old job I had. When I said about the job changing due to 'more travel' they said they'd look into it and get back to me.

If I leave without redundancy I have to pay back all my extra ml money which I simply can't afford to do. Also I couldn't possibly survive without the redundancy money.

So, I'll look at the jobs when they send them through, but if there is nothing available I take it I have no choice but to go back 4 days a week? From the way they soundd on the phone they really don't want me to go back even 4 days a week, lots of 'have a long hard think about the travel and your child care arrangements' etc.

Any advice? Am a bit all over the place as in

Will ask DH for you and see what you can do.....

I have a feeling that if you have signed a contract for 31 hours and agreed to such, you may be obliged to do so.

Back soon.....

thanks mouse. you're always entitled to your old job back after maternity leave or i think after 6 months ml your old job unless it no longer exists in which case you're entitled to a job of same status/pay/travel etc.

Problem here is I want less hours. You're entitled to ask for less hours but they're entitled to say no and I think if I then say no then they just treat me as a leaver not a redundancy.

If there is either your job or a 'suitable' job available for you on the same or no less favourable terms and conditions, then no you are not redundant and you would need to resign.

So there are two things, firstly are they justified in refusing your request and did they handle the request using an appropriate procedure, and secondly the extra travel.

How much extra travel are we talking, do you know? What does your contract say about extra travel? If your job involves a bit of travel and late nights at short notice already then it may be tricky to argue that a bit more travel is significant enough of a change for you to claim you are redundant, especially if your contract says about travel when required.

Thanks Flowery - I thought as much.

Appropriate proceedure - I sent in a form request asking for part time of 22.5, boss has verbally said no. Don't know whether she was suposed to do forms or not.

Extra travel - I worked from home originally, probably in the office a day a week at most. My contract states one day a week from home (at least). My contract does say something about 'travel occasionally necessary' but my boss said on the phone that now rather than being regional the main opportunities are in London, so meetings etc are held there. If I was on a project I would be expected to be there at least 2 days a week. Its a 2.5 hour commute each way for me to get to London.

I think if they won't offer redundancy then I have no choice but to go back 4 days as i can't afford to pay the mp back.

Brian, I don't have any legal advice to offer on this one. However, I would say from experience that you'd be best off trying to make it work at 31 hours a week and keeping yourself in a job + not having to pay back your mp.

I really agonised about going back to work but I found that once I was there and had the lie of the land a bit better I could negotiate my terms a bit eg: I am able to leave early on the days when I collect DD from nursery and arrive late some days too if I have to get her to the docs or HV or for jabs or whatever. I am also able to work from home a lot more than I thought I would. When I first went back I made sure I was really visibly pulling my weight, delivering on targets, attending all the big meetings etc so they didn't think my mind was still at home, and then I found once people knew I could be trusted to still do my job well, they cut me some slack. Could you (for example) agree to come back 31 hours but for 3 months initially and then reassess?

FWIW I think unless you are really keen to be a SAHM and take a longer break from work, it is a good idea to stay on the career ladder if you can, esp at the moment with redundancies flying around and the competition for jobs.

Brian - spoke to DH.

As they have now said to you that your job involves 'increased travel' than was originally stated in your terms of employment, they have, in effect, changed your job description? Have the written to you to inform you of this?

And as others have said, they do not need to offer you a redundancy package as the job is still there for you and has been since you went on maternity leave.

I don't understand why you would have to pay your MP back??? Nor does DH.

Very shitty of them BTW to ask you to think 'long and hard' about the travel and the childcare.

Let me know if you want help finding something else!!

It's quite usual if you get enhanced maternity pay that the enhanced bit is repayable if you don't come back from mat leave or if you do come back but subsequently leave within 6 months/a year.

Re: the travel, I'm not an expert on this but as others have said unless it's significantly more travel, or travel that really wasn't contemplated previously, I think it would be difficult to argue a change to job description on that basis.

Forgot to add that the usual exception to repayment of enhanced mat pay is redundancy (because that's the company's fault) which is presumably why the OP is trying to ascertain whether her post is redundant.

OP - is it worth checking your maternity policy to see if there are any other exceptions you could rely on? A very long shot but you never know.

elporto - very good point, thank you for sharing your experiences. When I went back last time they really argued over the 4 days thing (i was originally f/t) but eventually agreed. I worked my arse off and got fantastic appraisals so all good. But now my boss has changed and I've never met him before (my immediate boss is female my ultimate boss is male). So would have to prove myself all over again I think. I wanted to stay at home but finances wont let me so I thought 3 days was a good compromise. Having to go back 4 days with 2 young dc is really going to be hard.

Am a bit worried because when dc first go into nursery there are usually quite a few calls to you to pick up because they get all the bugs they've not had before. As all the team are either childless or have wives at home looking after their children they don't really understand 'having to leave early'

Your point re economic climate is a very valid one.

Mouse - repayment is of the additional mp, ie the bit on top of statutory they gave me which was a lot. And thats why I'm trying to work out if I could go for reundancy to avoid paying it back.

MrsTeddy - think you're right think it might be a long shot re the travel. However, as I think they want me to leave (don't like part time staff) they might bend.

nothing to add that hasn't been said except that worst case scenario is you have to do it for 6months to get out of paying back ML pay in which time you find something else?

Was there anything on the promised list of other posts that would interest you?

I assumed from your OP that the company were happy for you to go back to previous position (on previous hours), or would offer other vacancies (in line with the hours you want).

I hope there is one that suits; in a large company,there often is. I doubt very much you'd be considered for redundancy if you refuse your old post.

yep, check the mat policy and your contract just in case there is anything helpful. but unless they make you redundant (or pay you off), I'ld be inclined to go back at 31 hours, and keep a firm eye as to what is expected of you. don't suppose you have any union/professional body who could advis?

Perfectly normal to have to pay back maternity pay if a woman doesn't go back after maternity leave, or doesn't stay long enough. Most companies would let you off if they made you redundant but they are by no means obliged to unless it says in their maternity policy or other documentation that rules about repayment don't apply in the event of redundancy.

All it said in the OPs contract about travel was that it was occasionally necessary - quite sensibly it wasn't specific so I don't think it's nearly as clear cut as saying that 'more travel is required' constitutes a change to terms and conditions. There may well be clauses in the contract allowing the employer to vary the terms and conditions (there was a case recently where an employer successfully defended at tribunal a change to terms and conditions using one of these clauses) and it's also entirely likely there's a clause regarding working location allowing them to vary it. Changes to the duties of the job don't necessarily constitute a change to terms and conditions - most job descriptions are fluid documents anyway.

Even if this is enough of a change to constitute a change to terms and conditions, it doesn't necessarily follow that by not agreeing to the change the OP can then claim redundancy.

here is the procedure for flexible working requests It sounds as though they haven't really followed it properly so appealing their decision might be an option, although you may consider it to be pointless if you think they are very unlikely to change their mind.

Their comments about childcare and all that were completely inappropriate. Given that context I wonder if they were actually slightly exaggerating the increased travel requirement anyway. If you want to keep a job you may be best doing as others say and taking the 31 hours job, but if you get the feeling there might be a problem ongoing, you may wish to consider appealing the flexible working issue anyway, just to get their failure to follow procedure on record.

They are right in not offering redundancy, as the job you left still exists. They have also considered, as they should, your request for flexible workingm, and presumably have expalained why it is not possible.

Sorry, but they are doing things right.

hi everyone, had a chat with HR.

If it were redundancy I definitely wouldn't have to pay back the extra mp as it says so in our maternity policy.

HR have said that the change in amount of travel happened to everyone who was doing the same job as me so is nothing to do with my maternity leave, it would have happened the same if i'd been at my desk.

They say the change isnt therefore enough of a change to mean my job is significantly altered.

Therefore I can either apply for another job at my place from the list of internal jobs when it is sent to me (I've looked online already, none of them is part time) or I cam go back 4 days a week to my old job and just do the extra travel or I can resign.

So I'll be going back 4 days then

Thank you for all your help.

Oh thought of another question - when I was part time before they gave me the same job as full time people I just had to complete in 4 days not 5 Is there supposed to be something in place for the day I don't work?

thanks flowery - looking at your link they're not really following policy at mo either.

I give up

To answer your last question. No they don't have to put something in for the 5th day.

The other thng to consider is are you being treated equally to others in a simialr position.
Are requests from other parents in other departments treated favourably.

I know of a similar case where a line manager in one particular dept of a large company refused to amke adjustments to accommodate p/time working requests.
The union argued that although he was not in breach of maternity policy (it was pretty standard & vague) he was out of line with what was usual practice for that site & therefore he was acting with predudice and not giving full & proper consideration to the requests.

Whatever they say ask for full reasons in writting & then consider what you do next.

What do you mean by 'something in place'? If you were previously working 5 days and reduce it to 4 there is no obligation for your employer to specifically have someone else doing your job on the 5th day, no. Your workload is between you and your employer. Did you think the job wasn't doable in the 4 days? It sounds as though you were managing it well.

Once you get back to work I would try to figure out who is driving this requirement. You might find that the new boss is trying to mark their territory and after six months things settle down.

As for doing 2.5hrs each way to London, it will be a pain at first but I am sure after a few months people will be ok with you having conference calls from home. I would go back and evaluate after six months.

Could you not agree with dh to do pick-ups if the children are ill or otherwise need picking up early? At least share that sort of thing? He should have a bigger "good will account" if he's been at work ft while you've been on ml. After whatever period you have to be back at work without repaying ML you could sit down with dh and reassess what you want to do? Or go back to hr and ask if you can reduce your hours.

I completely sympathise by the way. I had a complete arse of a boss who said lots of derogatory things to clients while I was on ML with my dd. I know because most of them were shocked and disgusted with it and called me up to tell me (one even took my and dd to lunch! So much for boss being afraid of the "babything" getting in the way of clients). Anyway, was a complete nightmare and dp ended up taking 2 days off every week to be home with dd (we couldn't get fulltime childcare). In the end they wouldn't reduce my hours so I found a new job. I hope it works out!

Thanks everyone for all your comments, really helpful.

The 'something in place' I suppose was a system for handing over to someone else, I do the sort of job where you can't just leave things for one day. I coped well last time because I took calls on my day off, stayed in touch via email etc, basically I worked 5 days. I didn't want to have to do that again this time.

Thought about it all night and think will do as you guys have suggested - go back 4 days and see the lie of the land.

Thank you all again, I appreciate you giving your time.