Contractor/maternity/potentially perm pickle

[PeppermintInfusion]

I was going to be made redundant so swiftly found a contract role, starting immediately with no employment gap. A few days after the interview I discovered I was pregnant (was going to start to try, jobs came up, so stopped but obviously too late). I am now working for myself as a ltd company, and initially the contract was 6months, however it was mentioned that it could be longer and ideally they were looking to go perm (I put a lot of this down to recruitment spiel). Plan was to start then tell then after 20wk scan (end of oct), about halfway through contract.
Anyway now I've started a few weeks, but haven't really had a chance to show my efforts (getting set up, training etc took a long time). Friday I had my first meeting and the boss (based in another country so little face to face) said he was advertising the role as permanent. There are two others, more junior, who the vacancy is so open to (same generic title, all contracting) and it is publicly advertised, so not just me but I would probably be the main runner. Also given the tasked work, they are obviously planning for me to remain beyond 6months. Also ph would also impinge on something I'm working on that wi be released early 2015 (I could do the work, but couldn't attend the grand unveiling and would be going on ML soon after).
Should I tell them about pg now? This goes against my instincts as they could just tell me to go.
Do I not apply for the perm role? May look suspicious
Do I apply and tell them if I'm successful?

Why you working for your own limited company rather than being employed by them?

Because I'm on a temp contract and that is the easiest way of working non perm jobs in my field.

Well, employing someone isn't more difficult in one field than another, but ok. Just flagging up that if you move to permanent employment with the company doing exactly the same job in the same way, you would have a good argument for continuous employment.

I'm not sure why you are considering not applying for the permanent role, but based purely on what you've said, I would, not being aware of any reason not to. I would tell them about your pregnancy at the time you were planning to anyway.

Obviously they can't discriminate against you, which would include terminating your fixed term contract because of pregnancy or not offering you permanent employment because of your pregnancy, but I wouldn't rely on that and would not tell them until a decision has been made based purely on your suitability for the role, without that rather large piece of information clouding their decision making process.

I work in a field which is largely project based, hence the prevalence of people working as contractors, it's just the nature of the business (albeit contentious issue).
I was pg before I started the contract, so continuous employment is not such an issue. I am presuming I will get mat allowance and nothing else.

My contract, in theory, runs out just as I'll be going on Mat leave (by coincidence rather than design).
My first thought was not to apply, and I resigned myself to that and got on with the weekend. Thinking about it this morning I realised that was ridiculous to not even try, I have a very specific skillset which is why they would ideally need a perm employee.
I will apply and then if offered disclose that I'm pg before accepting- either to begin perm right away, contract til ML and then begin perm on my return, or if that is not compatible not accept the offer.
My DH thought I should tell them before even interviewing, but I would rather be judged on my merits first, as you said that would cloud their judgement.
If I didn't get it I can contract and tell them as late as possible (as I have no obligation to tell them before a certain date as a contractor), leaving on early next year as originally planned.

If you want the perm job apply for it. I wouldn't tell them I was pregnant...

They aren't supposed to discriminate against you so finding out you're pregnant after giving you the job won't be an issue... Will it...!?

If you don't get the perm job at least you won't be wondering if it's because you're pregnant.

"I will apply and then if offered disclose that I'm pg before accepting- either to begin perm right away, contract til ML and then begin perm on my return, or if that is not compatible not accept the offer."

Either they are recruiting a permanent post or they aren't. Don't feel guilted into continuing to contract for longer or even not accepting the post because of your pregnancy. They must treat you no less favourably than other candidates, which includes perm vs contracting.

Flowery, I agree- the more I thought about it the more I realise that they either need a perm position or they don't. However in some respects contracting is more financially advantageous.

Teenage- it is actually a bit of a grey area, as it don't have an employment contract with them, rather it is a client contract. So yes, they can't dismiss an employee for being pg, but they could terminate my contract (they don't actually need to have a reason to do this). Of course, it would be very bad practice if they did this and I would probably have some recourse if that happened, but it's not as clear cut.

So you think interviewing then disclosing pg would be seen as accepted practice and not deceptive?

Your protection against discrimination is not a grey area at all. Contract workers are specifically protected under the Equality Act the same as employees.

They may not need a reason to terminate, but the same applies to employees until they've been employed two years as well. In either case, even if under the contract they can terminate easily, if they are terminating because of your pregnancy that's unlawful discrimination.

In terms of not disclosing pregnancy until after being offered a job, I can't imagine anyone would be surprised by that. By disclosing it beforehand you are giving the impression that you think it's fine for them to include that information in their decision. Because otherwise why tell them?

Please listen to flowery OP. She's (he's?) an expert and the advice is always spot on.

Yes Flowery, you talk a lot of sense after sleeping on it I realise it's not as difficult as it first felt- interview, get it, tell them; interview, don't get it, keep contracting, tell them when I need to.

:)

A lot of women have a tendency to feel guilty about pregnancy when it comes to work, but it's nothing to be apologetic about. It's part of commercial life for any business that sometimes women will get pregnant and go on maternity leave. It's something that businesses need to deal with, and they do!

Although many women feel they ought to tell interviewers they are pregnant, as I say this does give the impression that the information is somehow relevant to the interview, which of course it is not.

What I always say when women come on asking that type of question is that telling the interviewer is not the best thing for the interviewer. If an interviewer knows a woman is pregnant, one of three things will happen.

1. The woman isn't the best person for the job but the interviewer feels they should be offered it anyway as they are terrified of being accused of discrimination. They are then burdened with someone who isn't the best person and with having to deal with maternity leave, and will probably resent the employee.

1. The woman is the best person for the job but the interviewer is worried about maternity leave so discriminates and offers it to someone else. The employer is in a bad position because they are legally vulnerable and don't have the best person for the job and obviously the woman is also in a bad position.

3.The woman is the best person for the job and the interviewer offers it to her. She will not know whether this is because of her suitability for the role or because the interviewer was worried about rejecting her for fear of a discrimination claim.

This means that regardless of whether the woman is offered the job or not, she will not know whether it was because of her suitability for the role or her pregnancy. The interviewer has been burdened with a very significant piece of information which could put the employer in a legally vulnerable position, and it is always going to be difficult to completely disregard that information.

Whereas if the interviewer doesn't know, the following will happen:

1. The woman is the best person for the job and is offered it purely on merits.

1. The woman isn't the best person for the job and is not offered it.

Both the interviewer and the woman know that the interviewer was given the opportunity to make a decision based solely on relevant information.

I'm labouring all this slightly despite your last post OP, purely because the question of whether to tell employers when interviewing for a job comes up a lot on here and I know lots of oeople read other threads rather than necessarily starting their own, so I thought elaborating might be helpful.