OH returning post mat. leave - employer being evasive

[crocknroll]

Hi, not sure if this thread rings true of others experiences, but would greatly value your input into what is turning into a bit of a nightmare (again) unfortunately.

Background:
OH works FT at company for 10+ years, we got pregnant, she took 12mo maternity leave, however when the time came to return, she found they basically wanted to keep the maternity cover in her role (naughty) and offered her an alternate role on the same terms (good).

Fast forward and we have child 2, she takes 12mo maternity again and with around 10 weeks until she returns, after trying to schedule a meeting to arrange her return, what the role has evolved to etc. However, the date keeps seemingly put back with excuses of workload etc. However there is continual mention of HR needing to be there, which suggests something may be afoot with regards to being rope changed/moved/offloaded.

My question(s) would be:
a) what's the minimum length of time required to discuss any changes ahead of return date?
b) with regards to role, and if it were to change or no longer exist, would she again be in line for another role of equal terms etc.?
c) Also, with regards to flexible working, if she requested to (and allowable fromam business perspective) would that role be on same terms and a pro-rata approach to salary?
d) if they dissolve the role, given the short timeframe as of yet (meeting now scheduled for circa 4 weeks prior to return) it does feel like it's deliberately left as late as possible to reduce the amount of questions or challenges that may come about so that simply, through fear of redundancy or poor working relationships going forward, the new role is accepted. Could this be classed as "unfair" or deliberately trying to force a decision?

We nearly took it to tribunal last time round, however the stress of not knowing the process, the cost and whether we had a genuine case meant taking the alternate role was sought.

Thanks in advance

a) and d) If your OH has given notice of her intention to return to work, her rights prevail in that her return to work date will be on the basis of her current conditions, re pay, status, job security, hours etc. As they have scheduled a meeting for 4 weeks prior to her return date, that is a reasonable timeframe for them to discuss intended changes to her employment. I don't think you can assume they are using delay tactics. She will still have her right to return on the date she has stated. They will have to make their intentions clear during the meeting, and she should act based on what they tell her.

b) she has the right to return to work on the same Ts and Cs of employment. It may not be back to her original role (the company is within their rights to keep the Mat cover on permanently) it just needs to be an equivalent role, so no loss of salary or status.

c) FW would have to be subject of negotiation with her employer just the same as any other employee, and it would be prorated the same as if she was an employee who hadn't been on Mat Leave

You can't assume they are being "unfair" just by interpreting their decision to call a meeting 4 weeks in advance of her return. She needs to work on absolutes, as to what the change is, whether it is discriminatory, whether it erodes her existing employment rights etc. She will only know that after the meeting.

She shouldn't agree to anything until she discusses their proposed change with ACAS, or CAB, or a solicitor if she feels in doubt.

It wasn't naughty for them to leave the maternity cover in her role, they are perfectly entitled to do so as she took 12 months. You would not have had any grounds for tribunal.

I also think the timeline of the meeting seems fine and I would not be worried about HR attending the meeting either, perhaps this is standard practice.

You seem determined to think that the employer is up to no good, four weeks is plenty of time to ask questions, think about alternative roles etc.

"It wasn't naughty for them to leave the maternity cover in her role, they are perfectly entitled to do so as she took 12 months."

Not true at all. An employee returning from maternity leave retains the right to return to her original job even if she takes more than 6 months' leave, unless it is not reasonably practicable for her to do so, in which case a suitable alternative can be offered instead. It may be justifiable for an employer to keep maternity cover in the original post, but not necessarily.

In answer to your questions OP:

a) There is no set minimum length of time as such, it depends on what the changes are. If the changes don't involve logistical differences, eg changing working hours or similar, then the employee doesn't necessarily need to know way in advance. On the other hand, if there is a restructuring or something, she needs to be consulted in the same way as other staff, which should happen when the change is actually happening, not after the event.

b)Yes

c) if she makes a flexible working request, it would be on the basis of reducing the hours of her substantive role, therefore if it is agreed, should be pro rata in terms of salary. However if they can't do her role part time but offer her a lesser one part time on the 'right' salary for that role, they can do that and she is free to say no.

d) Employees often get very little notice of redundancy, which is most often because an employer literally doesn't know for definite any sooner. Unless you have evidence they knew ages ago and deliberately withheld the information, and that it made a difference, I think you're on a hiding to nothing with that one. Four weeks before a redundancy/role change is plenty of time to raise concerns/queries/make alternative suggestion. Consultation is frequently shorter than that.

The main argument your OH might have is if a restructuring took place affecting her role while she was on maternity leave and she was not included in the process at the time and is just being informed of it after the event.