Can my employer not promote me because of being on ML?

[advicewouldhelp]

I've namechanged for this as I'm paranoid that someone from work might recognise me but I'm getting a bit desperate.... I'll try and be brief

I am currently on ML.

The contract I was on when I went on ML had me at a certain level in the company and stated that I would be on that level for X years and then "subject to performance" I would go up a level (which involves an increase in pay and responsibility).

I have now been told that the year I was on ML does not count towards the total number of years as stated in the contract - so effectively I have to make up the year I've "missed." I will not even have my performance considered in terms of the promotion until I have done this.

I am very upset about this as, financially, it might mean I cannot afford to go back to work at all because of the cost of childcare. We planned things based on the pay rise (I was 99% sure that my performance would be ok).

This really doesn't seem right to me. Any advice gratefully received.

Oh my word. You are in the UK I trust?

1. The contract terms are now pretty much illegal anyway as they indirectly discriminate on the basis of age.

2. Excluding your ML year and insisting you serve another year is indirectly discriminating you on the basis of sex.

All they needed to have done is to have worded it differently (eg using terms of level of demonstrated capability) and they would have got away with it, but this looks pretty bad.

You need to point out to them that their insistence on you serving an extra year is potentially discriminating against you on the grounds of sex and that you would like to seek confirmation from them in writing that you are not being considered for promotion on the grounds that you are deemed to have missed their criteria on account of being absent on ordinary maternity leave.

Then see what they come back with. I suspect a swift back-tracking will ensue.

When I was on ML, our employer temporarily introduced bonuses instead of a payrise depending on performance.

Originally I wasn't due one as on ML, but they changes their mind and I got one with my performance rated as the same as before I went (I think). I've no idea why that was the case.

Can you speak to your HR department for clarification?

Thanks for replying. I have asked my Union rep to have a look at it.

It just feels so wrong. If they had at least told me before I went on ML I could have considered going back earlier etc but they seem to think that it is obvious that the X number of years must be "served" (i.e. you have to be acutally in the office etc) rather than 2 calendar years. I have no idea whether they would apply the same logic if, for example, someone had been off sick for 2 months (would they have to make the time up?"). It also means that if I have another baby within the next 18 months I'll be set back again etc until I've done 24 months "worth" of work.

Sorry meant to say yes I am in the UK.

stillsquiffy (or anyone else!) do you think it makes a difference that I am coming out of a training period with them and the X years are generally understood to be the length of time you need to work under supervision before being let loose on your own (so to speak)? So my employer would probably argue that I need to do X months of "actual" work in order to reach the standard required for promotion?

It doesn't say anything like that in my contract or any policy/collective agreement that I am aware of but just trying to see it from their point of view.

I think some of the professions are allowed to argue this (eg as trainee lawyer or ACA you need to show so much of relevant experience), so yes, being under a training contract does make a difference. Saying that, excluding training contracts (and, I imagine, junior GP cases), most companies are expected to have moved away from this type of requirement and to have replaced with capability requirements.

Thanks still

Sorry for the shameless bump of my own thread but I have a meeting with my boss early next week so if there any more employment lawyers or HR professionals out there who can offer some thoughts on this I would really appreciate it.

Thanks

Not sure legally, but I would imagine that they are ok to ask for the required time period of experience before gaining promotion to be the time you are actually working - I think that is fair enough tbh. Although you have been employed continuously, you haven't actually gained any 'experience' during the year that you were on maternity leave, have you?
Also, a length of service clause before being put forward for promotion isn't age-related discrimination, because it is open to anyone regardless of the age they were when their employment commenced, ifkwim.

Also, they aren't not promoting you due to mat leave per se, the contract wording states the promotion is subject to 'satisfactory performance during a stated period of employment' - while you were off on mat leave for a year, could you argue that you performed to the required standards. Presumably your performance & service period before your mat leave will still count after you return and you will continue to build up your experience on your return?

I'm not sure what the current position is but 5 yrs ago either 4 or 6 months of ml counted towards a solicitors training contract if she was on ml during it. So if you took 9 months you'd only have another 5/3 months to make up not the whole 9. Just as a comparative.

Thanks tigger - I completed my professional qualification before I went on ML, but my employer adds on X years at a junior level before progressing you up a level. In reality everyone is progressed after that time period unless they are really rubbish. I'm pretty confident that had I not been on ML I would have been progressed.