Back to work after maternity leave - dodgy clause in new contract?

[gemini0555]

I'm about to return to work after (8 months of) maternity leave, before my leave I worked 4 days a week for the company and had been there 3 years.

On returning I requested part-time hours, 2 days a week. My employers granted my request but only if I would agree to return early - 1 month early. I agreed to this reluctantly, thinking of the long term.

I've just received my contract due to start on 10th September. It states -

Trial Period – trial period of one month, starting 10/09/2018 ending 10/10/2018 for both part-time employees. If we feel two members of staff is not working and simply is not suitable for the needs of the clinic we will terminate the employment and seek one member of staff only to cover all 4 days per week. Employees need to establish good communication skills to manage/liaise tasks that may not have been completed on their day of work. If too many mistakes are made –i.e failing/forgetting to return calls, emails or book patients in—we will terminate employment of both members of staff.

So, it looks as though I can just be fired at will if the other person doesn't work out. I asked them to clarify and they stated that if 2 people doesn't work out they'll offer me the full time role once again (which they know I can't do) It seems a weird clause... any advice?

I had to do a trial period of reduced hours when I returned from maternity leave. It wasn’t a job share though, it was to ensure I could cope with the workload in a shorter week. If the trial had been unsuccessful I would have had no choice but to gmail back full time, or leave.

The flexible working policy was that they have to consider all requests, but not that they nessesarily have to agree to them. If it doesn’t work for the business then have no obligation to let you drop your hours.

It’s shit, I know, and they should have spoken to you about it rather than just dropping it into your contract. That doesn’t sound very professional at all.

• go not gmail bloody autocorrect!

Take it or leave it. They are probably sick of people going off on leave and then coming back and only wanting part-time and this is a good way to get rid of such folks.

They are probably sick of people going off on leave and then coming back and only wanting part-time and this is a good way to get rid of such folks.

What a great way to support your employees with young families.

I think because you've been over 6 months, they can change the terms and conditions, especially as you are requesting a change to your contracted hours yourself. But it's been 6 years since I last went in maternity leave so I'm not that up to date.

It's not ideal, Blair, but they will be putting their bottom line ahead of anything else is my guess.

The thing is though, by doing so surely they’d drive out employees with kids? Which isn’t a great way to run a business I’d have said.

If you’re returning after 6 months but before 12 months of maternity leave, they don’t have to give you your old job back, but they do have to give you the same terms and conditions as before.

They can refuse a request for part time working if they have a good business reason.

So I would go back to them and say that they have to guarantee you a similar role to before on the same terms. You are happy to accept a trial of part time working and understand that it won’t continue if it doesn’t work out. But they have to continue to employ you on your previous terms. Whether you want to work on those terms is up to you.

Blair, there are many people with children that work full time, far more than part time.
Basically, they have considered your request and are willing to give it a go to see if it will work and not have a detrimental impact in their business. That seems absolutely fair to me. They are employers, not a charity! The other option would have been to reject your request outright and you would have been out of a job anyway. Now is the time t prove to them that your request cam work.

That doesn't look right to me. I'd get advice from an employment lawyer if I were you. My understanding of the law is that they have to offer you an equivalent role on the same terms & conditions of employment, and they have to consider (but aren't obliged to agree) to your flexible working request. On reduced hours they can amend your ts & cs reasonably ie reduced pay for reduced hours, but I'm sure they can't insert a new clause that enables them to terminate your contract with less notice than before, I think that would be classed as sex discrimination. A probationary period to check that flex working is ok is fair enough, but if they conclude that it isn't working, you should be returned to your previous hours rather than fired or put into a FT role. You should maintain the same continuity of employment as before so retain all of the same terms around termination of employment as you had before you went on mat leave. I'd certainly challenge that clause & get some legal advice to make sure you're clear on your rights. Good luck

Bezm plenty, particularly women, don’t though, and employers should facilitate that where they can. Otherwise they make it quite difficult for certain people to enter the workplace.

It's not ideal, Blair, but they will be putting their bottom line ahead of anything else is my guess.

Bottom line will take a fair old battering if they get a tribunal against them for unfair dismissal and discrimination.

OP it’s a bit complex to give you detailed advice on based on just your post. I’d suggest taking proper legal advice, or at the very least asking your thread to be moved to employment issues so you get some half decent responses.

At my work, it’s kind of similar in that there is a probation period to see if the new hours are working out but we don’t do job shares so there’s no wording like this and I don’t think we do a one month trial but I can’t remember now. Could you request a 2 or 3 month period for the trial so there’s time to fix anything that doesn’t work?

I work part time and had a trial period but the end result of the trial going well would not have been me getting sacked! It would have been me having to go back to full time.

I think you should call ACAS, is the other person also an existing employee with similar skills?

We're just moving this thread over to employment issues at the OP's request.

When I first did a job share (many moons ago!) there was a trial period. I think that’s fairly standard, because if it’s evident that the job is not being done as effectively by 2 people then it’s fair enough that it reverts to being a job for one.

If you’d taken ML of 6 months and not extended leave, youd have the right to your previous job back, and even now you have right to a role with the same t and c (even if not rhe exact same role.) Is that a possibility if things don’t work out?

If we feel two members of staff is not working and simply is not suitable for the needs of the clinic we will terminate the employment and seek one member of staff only to cover all 4 days per week. Employees need to establish good communication skills to manage/liaise tasks that may not have been completed on their day of work. If too many mistakes are made –i.e failing/forgetting to return calls, emails or book patients in—we will terminate employment of both members of staff.

Is this really the actual wording OP? I'm struggling to believe they can have any credibility writing If we feel two members of staff is not working

Putting that aside, it is a poorly worded contract clause and is made to sound like a threat (if you don't do x we will sack you). It doesn't make clear that you have employment rights. They can't just terminate staff with no consequences when, in your case, you are an employee with 3 years' unbroken service history. They should refer to their flexible working policy and abide by those terms, which if it follows ACAS good practice, will give the employee guidance on any trial period and the process to be followed if, following unsuccessful completion of the trial what would happen, ie you'd have the option to return to the legacy hours you had pre- Mat Leave.

I can understand them needing to have efficient well-coordinated coverage if they are operating a job share, but they've gone about it completely the wrong way. Maybe they are inexperienced in how to manage job sharing but that's no excuse.

Do they have an HR department or person? Take your concerns to them and get them to recognise you have 3 years' service, and to comment on their clause in that context.

“If too many mistakes are made –i.e failing/forgetting to return calls, emails or book patients in—we will terminate employment of both members of staff.”

I think the OP is seeking advice on this portion - which is badly written and suggests she can be fired due to another person’s mistake.

What they’re saying is if one part time person fails, then they won’t look for a replacement but instead terminate both part time roles. And you go back to your full time role. Do you have their clarification in writing on an email?
Can you request an edit to the end like ... “we will terminate the trial period effective immediately and you will resume your existing contracted 40 hours, 8 -m - xpm, Monday-Thursday.”

They can terminate the trial period for any reason anyway so they’re actually clarifying for you that even if it’s working great on your end, it also depends if the other person works out and how you two work together.

It looks like with a very clumsy attempt to help / make sure you set up good systems and working relationships.

Do you know the person doing the other days?

A contract shouldn't leave the employee guessing where they stand. You can drive a coach and horses through this in terms of how it's written, the fact it's a confused and ambiguous ragbag of 'what ifs' and 'what could happen'.

I agree, taco, the part about the OP relying on her jobshare partner's performance for her job security and rights is bonkers. There are, of course, dependencies with a job share, but it shouldnt be embedded within the individual's employment contract. It's a performance management and capabilities matter, which is distinct.

Thanks for your responses.

Its just me and the bosses, so no HR person or dept.

I can't imagine anyone would want to take on the other half of the job share with this contract? They're currently looking for someone - so no, never met them.

1 month seems barely enough time to set up working together and processes.

“I agree, taco, the part about the OP relying on her jobshare partner's performance for her job security and rights is bonkers.”

I read that to be during the temporary trial, after which they get to decide whether it works for the organisation or doesn’t. Even if the OP and the 2nd employee do a stellar job during the trial period, the company has every right to say “no we can’t see this working on a permanent basis for us, it means more work/supervision for other roles... any number of legitimate and vague reasons that the OP won’t be able to dispute. The company isn’t just trialing OPs performance but the entire set up and how it will impact on other existing staff.

I would want it confirmed IN WRITING that I would be assured of a job at the end of the trial period if the flexible working didn’t work out - that I could return to my originl hours/contract without having to reapply.