Forced to give up work

[Uhu]

I saw an acquaintance today at the baby clinic and she told me that she had to give up her job because her company refused to consider her coming back part-time following maternity leave. They have "paid her off" in order that she does not make a fuss. I still cannot believe that things like this happen or am I naive? She says that the company is very male orientated and her boss would not even consider any role that she could perform part-time (she is a PA). My company have bent over backwards to accommodate me and they even sent me on an engineering training course when I was 5 months pregnant! I will be going back for 3 days a week in the same role but with reduced responsibilities. Their view is that they have invested a great deal in my training and do not want to lose it.

Companies have the right to set their own policy but a lot them need to wake up to the fact that this is the 21st centuary, women make up half the population and therefore, half the potential employees. If a man falls ill with stress and takes 6 month sick leave, that is acceptable but they take issue with maternity leave. If a man gets drunk the night before and calls in sick the next day, that is acceptable but if a woman calls in to say that she has to take a day off for a sick child, she is scoffed at. If a man decides to take a year off to travel the world because it will make him a better manager when he returns that is accepted but a woman wanting to take up to one years maternity leave is seen as a burden? The argument that companies invest all this money training women then they leave to have babies does not stand up to scrutiny either. What about men, who tend to have less loyalty and scruples, who farm themselves out to the highest bidder once they are trained and hop from company to company in order to scale the dizzy heights? What about the investment in their training?

Time to get off my soapbox and tend to a crying baby!

Do companies have the right to set their own policies on this? I thought it was just point-blank discrimination? Don't they have to at least give written reasons why they won't consider her request to work part-time?

at this.

I think she should talk to the Equal Opportunities Commission, but I suspect that what her company has done is say it's considered her request to work reduced hours (as it is legally obliged to do) and then refused that request.

*ers.

(I may be talking bollocks, though, I usually am.)

think you're right motherinf. if the company can prove one of several reasons for refusing they're within their rights

not that i'm saying you're right about the talking bollocks motherinf... oh sh@@ should read posts before posting... you know what i mean ...

here you go (just wrote a long reply and then lost it -a rse)
basically if they can come up with a valid business reason why part time work wasn;t viable they would probaly get away with it. They only have a duty to 'consider' flexible (part time or whatever) work

"From 6 April 2003 parents of children aged under six or of disabled children aged under 18 will have the right to apply to work flexibly providing they have the qualifying length of service. Employers will have a statutory duty to consider their applications seriously.

The right enables mothers and fathers to request to work flexibly. It does not provide an automatic right to work flexibly as there will always be circumstances when the employer is unable to accommodate the employee?s desired work pattern. The right is designed to meet the needs of both parents and employers, especially small employers. and aims to facilitate discussion and encourage both the employee and the employer to consider flexible working patterns and to find a solution that suits them both. The employee has a responsibility to think carefully about their desired working pattern when making an application, and the employer is required to follow a specific procedure to ensure requests are considered seriously."

80% of people who made their requests formally through the new procedures last year got them accepted. it's far more likely to succeed than an informal request. the company may have a valid reason for refusing but they usually find it harder to put it down in writing.

I think there are more details on the department for work and pensions (have I got the right one?) website ? or Maternity Alliance. There's very clear criteria demonstrating exactly what employers have to show if they turn a request down. They can only turn it down for one of the specific reasons listed in the guidance and they have to show a valid business case. Hard to see how they could justify not accommodating a PA, to be honest, I'd have thought it was one of the roles that would lend itself to job-share or flexible working. But then some companies and bosses are pig-headed sexists.
Where on earth do they think their future customers are going to come from, the stork?
Grrrrr

Definitely contact Equal Ops - I know a solicitor that works for them and dealt with a case of a woman my dh worked with. She wanted to return part-time, they refused and she went to the EOC and the company ended up settling out of court (I think she got a year salary).

They have to make a very strong case for refusing part-time work so if it was me I'd challenge them to do it!

They have already pre-empted this by giving her a pay off, i.e they know they are wrong so they've paid out now to keep her quiet. She was prepared to do other work, jobshare etc but they weren't interested. I like the comment about the stork because it is a business that is dependent upon attracting new consumers.

Well I just hope she got a lot of money out of them. I'm surprised she can talk about it actually, most of these pay offs have a gagging clause and you officially have to say you are "pusuing other interests" yeah right!