Is this discrimination?

[Ohtheaudacity]

I am on maternity leave and due back to work at the end of May. I have a 4yo and 8mo. When I return to work I will have had a full year of mat leave. My pregnancy was uncomplicated but my son fell very poorly at 14 weeks old. He pulled through but is now being investigated for potential cerebral palsy. I had a meeting with my manager in January and explained my personal situation and how my desire now was to reduce my working hours/responsibility (my current role is senior management with a huge workload) to have a better work life balance. They were receptive to this and went away to work on a new position for me in the company in reduced hours/responsibility.

Today I had a further meeting with them where they outlined a new position to fulfil a business need and which suited my needs. I was made aware they had offered my current role to the person who is my maternity cover currently. However, it was then explained that my new role would be on a significantly reduced salary pro-rate, almost £6 an hour less equivalent. I raised a concern that as a woman returning from mat leave I was entitled to either my old job back or a different role on the same pay. They then said in that case I could either have my old role back on my old hours & salary, or accept the new job on the reduced salary (“hourly rate”).

I spoke to ACAS who advised because my employer has verbally offered my current role to someone else, they have effectively brought my current job to an end. As this has happened while I am on maternity leave and they have offered the role to my maternity cover, it could amount to discrimination. ACAS have also advised me that verbal job offers and acceptances are legally binding. My employer is therefore obliged to offer me a job on similar terms than I was on before as they have effectively brought my current job to an end.

Does this sound right? I don’t want to raise hell unless I have to as I work for a small company and I’ve been there for 15 years. I’d really appreciate any advice and will answer any questions. Thank you.

I have suffered a similar thing in the past.
I returned from leave and my post had been taken, I was offered a post in another department, the excuse being it was part of my contract that i would take other duties as deemed necessary to the business.
i didnt have a pay reduction, and they accepted my reduction in hours, however the alternate job wasnt what i wanted, and i eventually had no choice but to leave.
I look back now and believe this was done intentionally.

I think you have good grounds to go ahead, complain or take legal action if necessary.
good luck

I think you have good grounds to go ahead, complain or take legal action if necessary.

You haven’t. You don’t have the right to return to your previous position after additional May leave

*mat leave

So sorry, I accidentally created 2 threads and seem to have got in a pickle of updating both. However….

So, I have somewhat of an update (yes I know it’s late but I’ve just checked my email…)

I have received an email from my manager explaining that my maternity cover has not “technically” been offered my exact job role/title. They have tweaked the role slightly and changed the job title slightly (think “head of sales” to “sales manager”). They say this new role is part of a wider company restructure and is effective 1st April. I am not due back until early June but when I am back I will join the team in this new, lesser worse paid job. Does this change things? Does this help my case? They are still, confusingly, saying that I can return to my old job if I choose, while in the next breath saying that job will cease to exist from 1st April 2022. I’m so confused!

No it doesn’t help your ‘case’, you’ve still got the offer of your job, or the less hours and responsibility one you requested. Yet you are still looking for a ‘case’ to try and ruin their business/reputation because they Havnt offered you the same money for less responsibility. It’s not their fault your childcare won’t take your son so you can go back full time, they’ve offered an alternative! I understand you are in a difficult situation in your home life but I think you are handling this in a very cheeky way.

Also you can report and have one of your duplicate threads removed, less confusing for everyone!

You've asked for less responsibility and now it's discrimination that you've been offered a role with less responsibility and less pay? You ARE a chancer. Either take back your old job that they've offered you back (doesn't matter if they've also offered it to someone else, they've said you can have it back as well if you want it) or take the job on less pay, but you can't have it both ways. Doesn't work like that and that isn't discrimination. It's you wanting to be paid the same for doing less and calling it discrimination if you don't get what you want.

What do you want? Your old job? On its old terms?

They are still, confusingly, saying that I can return to my old job if I choose, while in the next breath saying that job will cease to exist from 1st April 2022. so you can return to your old job but be made redundant from 1st of April I think is what they are saying?

You can go back to your old job , no discrimination .
Your old job is subject to restructure in April , this restructured job will be yours .
You can opt for one of the new lesser roles , less responsible (that will be a lower pay scale) that you requested.
So far no discrimination unless you say I've thought about it I want my old job and they say no we gave it to your cover .

It sounds like they are having a restructure. This does not "help your case". They are offering you a role on the same T&Cs as when you left. They are perfectly entitled to restructure whilst you are on maternity leave.

The only confusion has been caused by you. They are probably incredibly confused about why you are claiming they are discriminating against you for doing exactly as you asked.

You have two options:

1 - return to your old job (possibly slightly different due to restructure)
2 - return to the role that has been created for you at your request

Option 2 will, of course, be paid less as there is less responsibility involved.

Does this change things? Does this help my case?

You don't have a case. You're taking the mick trying to set this out as a case of discrimination, and it's behaviour like this that makes life difficult for other women returning from maternity leave.

1. Go back to your old job. If they're having a restructure, they're having a restructure, and your maternity leave doesn't give you some kind of magical immunity against organisational change.

OR

2. Take the reduced hours, reduced responsibility job that they've created and offered to you because you asked them to. Reduced responsibility will come with a lower hourly rate. This is obvious. Your maternity leave doesn't give you some kind of magical immunity where you can do a less-responsible job at your original hourly rate.

AND

3. Stop trying to claim discrimination where it doesn't exist.

It wasn’t discrimination on your other thread and it is not discrimination on this one either

Honestly I know you’re in a tough spot but you cannot ask for less hours and responsibilities and be asked to be paid the same. And they are allowed to talk to talk to others about possibly filling the role

Wanting less hours and responsibilities on the same money isn’t going to happen and it’s not discriminatory to not give it to you.

People like you give women who are actually discriminated against a really bad name. You don't have a "case" for the reasons many pp have said. You are a real CF.

@Ohtheaudacity

So sorry, I accidentally created 2 threads and seem to have got in a pickle of updating both. However….

So, I have somewhat of an update (yes I know it’s late but I’ve just checked my email…)

I have received an email from my manager explaining that my maternity cover has not “technically” been offered my exact job role/title. They have tweaked the role slightly and changed the job title slightly (think “head of sales” to “sales manager”). They say this new role is part of a wider company restructure and is effective 1st April. I am not due back until early June but when I am back I will join the team in this new, lesser worse paid job. Does this change things? Does this help my case? They are still, confusingly, saying that I can return to my old job if I choose, while in the next breath saying that job will cease to exist from 1st April 2022. I’m so confused!

Whilst on maternity leave you should be informed of any new roles and vacancies with the opportunity to apply for them.

So yes it helps your case because that has not happened.

@MajorCarolDanvers yes she has, she’s been offered both roles. It clearly says that.

I'm not sure it is helpful to call op a chancer or cf. She is misunderstanding the difference between her rights on return from ml and a flexible working request, and now a potential restructure in which her former role changes, possibly to her advantage. However I'm more confused as to why an apparent senior manager is looking at it in terms of £/hr, most are salaried and beyond measuring it as such. Throwing in belatedly talk of a restructure is just adding to the confusion on this thread.

I suspect ACAS gave advice purely from the Maternity angle, without you saying you had actually requested a lower pressured/part time role due to your circumstances. Be careful how you go forward, the company seems very amenable and proactive at the moment but may become less so if you persist in changing the goalposts,

[quote Cakelover17]@MajorCarolDanvers yes she has, she’s been offered both roles. It clearly says that.[/quote]
Doesn't read that way to me.

I don’t see how, she literally says she’s been offered both roles. How else can you read that? They’ve offered the less hours/responsibility she asked for, and also her old/equivalent role from the restructure and has been given a week to decide. Which part of that reads like she hasn’t been offered both roles?

Have you read this, OP? It's really clear on what is and isn't allowed. I think it's pretty clear they've done nothing wrong and actually, have been more accommodating than they need to be.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/rights-at-work/parental-rights/maternity-leave-your-options-when-it-ends/#:~:text=You're%20entitled%20to%20return

People really don’t know employment law here.

OP has a right to return to her original role which they’ve done. They shouldn’t have offered this role to the maternity cover until the new lesser role had been agreed. They’ve not YET done anything which could really help you win in a tribunal.

You have the right to a flexible working request. This would not affect your pay per hour but would pro rata you. This is what you need to put in. No “less responsibility” or anything. Same job role, you ask for 3 days a week or whatever. They can only reject on several outlined grounds.

I would simply go back to your employer, say you want your old role and then put in a FORMAL ( on ACAS website) flexi working request. Then see what happens.

People really don’t know employment law here

Including you unfortunately. You don’t have the right to return to your old job if you have taken more than ordinary Mat leave (which the op has) and if the employer can show it isn’t reasonably practicable for you to do so. The op wants fewer hours and less responsibility and so the not reasonably practicable test is very likely to be satisfied. But in any event this is all happening at the OP’s request. As soon as she changed her mind they offered to put everything back to the way it would have been. I’m a solicitor who specialises in discrimination.

They have created a role to suit your request of less responsibility but still offering you the choice of that or old role. I can't see thar is discrimination. Higher paid roles have higher responsibility. If you are not doing a role at the higher level you can't expect to get paid for it.

People really don’t know employment law here.

I agree. ACAS is the best place for impartial expert advice.

OP has a right to return to her original role which they’ve done

Unfortunately that only applies if mat leave us 6 months or less.

If more than 6 months she has the right to a role on not worse terms and conditions but it does not need to be the same.

@Cakelover17

I don’t see how, she literally says she’s been offered both roles. How else can you read that? They’ve offered the less hours/responsibility she asked for, and also her old/equivalent role from the restructure and has been given a week to decide. Which part of that reads like she hasn’t been offered both roles?

Perhaps OP can clarify. I read that there are 3 roles and she's been offered 2 of them.

1. her old role - offered to OP
2. a new role on less pay - offered to OP
3. a new 'tweaked' role offered to mat cover.

Role 3 has not been offered to OP and that's a problem.

That's how I read it.