Redundancy when pregnant

[HeirToTheIronThrone]

So, today I was told that my role is being put up for consultation as part of a large cost-cutting scheme - in total the company will be 'removing' 135 jobs.

I am 33 weeks pregnant and currently due to finish work in just over 3 weeks. I will be starting my official maternity leave a week after that as I'm using annual leave at first.

Can anyone advise on my rights? I will have left work by the time the consultation period ends and will have a newborn at the exact time that interviews for remaining roles will take place! I believe they have to pay me my SMP so that's good, but I would quite like to have a job to return to as well...

Your pregnancy/maternity leave can't be a factor in selecting you for redundancy, however that doesn't prevent them making your position redundant if fair selection criteria lead to that happening.

If your role is redundant while you are on maternity leave, and there is a suitable alternative vacancy available, you have an advantage in that you must be offered that role, and not expected to compete with others.

Do you know what the proposed selection criteria are for redundancies?

Thanks @flowery

No not yet - I have my formal notice meeting on Thursday when I will know more.

As Flowery says, being pregnant/on mat leave won't stop the process but they'll need to take steps to ensure you aren't disadvantaged.
When you say there will be 'interviews for remaining roles' when you are already on maternity leave, do you know if these are interviews as part of a selection process to determine who is made redundant, or are they interviews for alternative vacancies that may be suitable redeployment options for people already selected for redundancy? E.g. is it that you are part of a team of 10 Widget Makers, and due to a downturn in widget business they now only need 5 Widget Makers, so they are proposing to interview everyone to determine which 5 they keep and which 5 are redundant? Or is it that they are no longer going to be making Widgets at all but have decided to switch production, all Widget Maker positions are redundant, however they now require 5 Gadget Makers with a similar skill set, and propose to interview everyone for the new Gadget Maker roles? If the distinction is not clear in the consultation documents you've been given I would try and clarify this in the meeting, as it makes a difference to you in particular.

If it's the former then you are not necessarily entitled to any preferential treatment in the selection process, but they need to make it accessible to you which could be by postponing interviews until you can participate or by not using interviews as a selection method at all, not sure what sector you are in but the public sector are still very set on using interviews to select for redundancy but it isn't always the fairest way (in particular it's problematic for people out of the workplace on maternity, sick leave, career breaks etc, as well as being tricky to accommodate some disabilities fairly), they can use any fair and objective criteria such as looking at performance records or previous appraisal ratings for instance.

If it's the latter then you could be entitled to priority access to the job as suitable alternative employment ahead of colleagues not on maternity leave and not expected to interview/compete for it at all...

I'd say if OP is a widget maker and they need to reduce 10 widget makers to 5, she should be appointed on application as shes already doing the job, so a failure to do so would risk a successful claim of maternity discrimination.

"I'd say if OP is a widget maker and they need to reduce 10 widget makers to 5, she should be appointed on application as shes already doing the job, so a failure to do so would risk a successful claim of maternity discrimination."

But all the other existing 10 widget makers are also already doing the job. So unless they used criteria which disadvantaged the OP due to her pregnancy, they would not be risking a successful claim.

The preferential treatment entitles women on maternity leave to be offered a suitable alternative vacancy, where one exists. A pure reduction in headcount from 10 widgetmakers to 5 widgetmakers doesn't involve alternative vacancies. But if OP lost her job in such a headcount reduction and there was a vacant widgetmaker post in another branch, or a gadgetmaker post available with very similar skills required, she would be entitled to be offered it over and above her 4 widgetmaker colleagues who had also been made redundant.

I wouldn't take the risk personally flowery, particularly if OP could not be easily assessed due to being on mat leave. Very easy for someone in this situation to claim discrimination, even if strictly speaking it is not a suitable alternative. And hard to defend particularly if minimal difference in skills/performance of all widget makers.

I wouldn't say it's a particular risk Clouds, if (and I grant you it's a big if) you design your selection criteria well and they are objective, robust, non discriminatory, do not require unreasonable effort on part of the employee (e.g. expecting her to do an interview 1 week postpartum)! Criteria do need to be sufficiently differentiated that you don't end up with lots of people on the same 'score' (or nearly the same), who can then claim discriminatory or otherwise unfair reasons behind the process, but this is all part of the design.

The trouble (with all respect to OP who of course wants to keep her job!) with just saying 'well we won't make the pregnant lady redundant, too risky' is what about the disabled man? What about the poor performer who's been going through a tough time at home? What about the older lady nearing retirement? The young black guy? Where do you draw the 'too risky' line? And how do you ensure you keep the people who are actually good at their jobs, which after all is what any business needs to keep functioning, without which no-one will have a job? IMO what organisations should do is (of course) abide by the law and ensure everyone gets a fair and equitable shot at keeping their jobs but (legal exceptions as outlined earlier in the thread excepting), in general roles should go to the best people and not be simply given out on the basis of protected characteristics or perceived risk in them suing the company.

Sorry for the derail OP, one thing not mentioned which it might be useful to raise as part of the consultation, is to ask whether the company will run any voluntary redundancy schemes as a mitigating action? Not for yourself as you want to keep your job, but even without offering significantly enhanced terms companies will often get a significant number of volunteers (people who are fed up and want to move on anyway etc.), and if it's a pure headcount reduction exercise it could much reduce the need for compulsory redundancies....

"I wouldn't take the risk personally flowery, particularly if OP could not be easily assessed due to being on mat leave. Very easy for someone in this situation to claim discrimination, even if strictly speaking it is not a suitable alternative. And hard to defend particularly if minimal difference in skills/performance of all widget makers."

Well it depends doesn't it? If they used the usual sensible criteria around skills/performance/etc, and the OP scored way lower than everyone else (which I am sure she wouldn't), then it would be very risky not making her redundant, as the person scoring 4th highest, who should therefore keep their job, but lost it because of unfair application of the selection criteria, would have a very good argument for unfair dismissal.

But on the other hand if it were very close when scoring, and touch and go whether someone on maternity leave came 5th or 6th, either keeping their job or losing it, then yes I can see a temptation to be a bit over-cautious with their scoring, as it is more likely to be challenged, and less easy to defend.

How I wish I was a widget maker, it sounds fun...

I won't know the answer on the roles until Thursday but this is all food for thought, thank you. It's third sector so they are very keen on doing everything 'right' I think.