can my employer end my contract whilst i am on mat leave??

[vitomum]

my employer is trying to vary the terms and conditions of the whole workforce. We have been asked to voluntarily sign an agreement that`our contracts can be changed. If we don't the there is a further process of meetings etc to 'persuade' us to sign. If we continue to refuse then our contracts will be ended and we will offered new contracts with the new terms and conditions.

There's loads of union activity around this and a 'don't sign' campaign. I know that if they eneded my contract i would have a pretty water tight sex discrim case as one of the changes to the terms and conds is an increase in hours. However, as a further point, can i say to them that it is not open to an employer to end a person's contract when they are on mat leave? If the union campaign is not successful then it would really suit me to delay my battle for as long as possible as it would ensure i at least get an extra pay increment out of them (one of the other changes to terms and condis is that they are doing away with increments)

anyway, any words of advice much appreciated TIA

vitomum there is nothing saying that a contract can't possibly be ended specifically because someone is on maternity leave.

As you know, this is a longwinded process which an employer is obliged to go through when they decide they need to change the terms and conditions of the workforce. The union will be forcing them to jump through all the hoops, and making it as difficult as possible for them

Have a read of this about what happens if you don't consent to a change in your employment conditions. As you can see, there may be an option to claim unfair dismissal, and how successful any case would be will depend on whether the employer is reasonable in taking these actions, obviously I have no idea whether that would be the case.

What advice have you taken that indicates you have a 'water tight' sex discrimination case if one of the conditions that have changed is an increase in hours? I'm no lawyer but I'm not sure I agree if these changes are universal and apply to all or a large proportion of the workforce, there is nothing you have said so far that indicates that your maternity leave had anything to do with any of this. If anyone comes along with any other thoughts I am happy to be corrected, of course, and I have done no research at this point.

Obviously I don't know the ins and outs but that's my first instinct. Are you speaking to someone at the union? If not I would advise you do. As I say, I am sure they are making it as difficult as possible for your employers and any action any employee takes as a result of this disagreement will be more powerful done as a group, which is one of the advantages of a unionised workforce.

If the hours are going to be a problem, you could put in a flexible working request to reduce them?

Flowery - I agree re the sex discrimination point. Vitomum, I don't think it is as straightforward as the case being watertight because it involves a change in hours.

You could possibly run an indirect sex discrimination case based on the fact that women will find it harder than men to increase their hours and therefore the requirement is indirectly sex discrimination (you will need to be able to back this assertion up based on your own particular work force). Even then, the employer has a possible defence if they can show that the changes were in pursuit of a legitimate business aim and that the way they went about that aim was proportionate.

I think Flowery has answered the rest, but I do think you'd need detailed legal advice if you wanted to argue sex discrimination.

Thanks Ribena was hoping you'd pop along.

You can talk to ACAS who give advice but in my experience these employers get away with it. I was made redundant on maternity leave along with another colleague. She took it to tribunal and lost her case.

thanks v muvh for those replies everyone. I totally agree that this is best fought by the workforce as a whole and i am totally supporting all the union activity. I haven't asked the union advice for the bit about my mat leave yet, purely because i know they are totally up to their eyes with everything else that is happening. we have all had general ACAS / legal advice around ending contracts etc.

The reason i thought i would have a good sex discrim case came from a conversation i had with the equal opps commission. they advised that a blanket increase in hours would disproportionately affect women, as women are established in case law as providing the bulk of childcare. they also said that the benchmark for demonstrating 'harm' was set very low. therefore, would not necessarily have to show financial harm, eg through increased childcare expenses, but could simply state loss of time with child as the negative impact.

Management are offering those that can't increase hours the option of a flexible work request - but based on the new contract hours. so for me this would meen a loss of 5% of my salary - again something that is dispropotionately going to hit women.

apols for all the typos - one handed typing

But vitomum if they are going to increase the hours surely they will increase pay accordingly, no? Isn't the union fighting for that? In which case a flexible working request to bring hours back down would bring them back to 'normal' rate.

I do think that if there is a genuine business reason why hours need to be increased then I'm not sure even an indirect sex discrimination case would be easy. Having said that obviously we don't know much about what the hours change will entail. In any case if there is a decent case for indirect sex discrimination it will involve the whole workforce, not just you on maternity leave so I am sure your union is on the case about looking into that.

I am curious about the pay thing though...?

hi again. No the increase in hours will not bring a pay increase. They are increasing the hours in the working week from 35 to 37.5. I am on a 28 hour week so they want me to go up to 30 - with no increase in pay. If i stay at 28 i loose 5% of my salary.

yes the union has raised the issue of test cases after dismissal. the hope at the moment though is that if we all refuse to sign then management will have to back down rather than face the bad publicity of sacking the whole workforce. we are a charity that fights for the legal rights of a certain marginalised group so might not look great to be riding roughshod over the emnployment rights of your very comitted workforce

[angry

Hopefully your union is right, and a widespread refusal forcing their hand might do the trick.

Very best of luck with it. I have done lots of work for charities, v. disappointing that one is behaving like this.

I am sorry Vitomum, but I don't think it's as simple on the sex discrimination as the equal opps person might have led you to believe. To win, there'd have to be three things:

1. There is a rule which is harder for a woman to comply with than a man;
2. The person bringing the claim can't comply with it; and
3. The employer cannot justify why the change needs to be brought in.

There are a couple of points where I think there are issues. Firstly, the analysis that the equal opps people gave you is actually the one the courts apply for part time working. It is generally accepted by courts that a blanket rule that you have to work full time will affect more men than women because they bear most of the burden of childcare. I am not sure that the same thing is true with an increase in hours to the working week. That could easily affect just as many men as women (e.g. because they collect children from childcare, or have to be home to allow a partner to leave for work), so I think that the tribunal would want stats for the whole workforce. If the change in hours was just as difficult for the men to comply with, a sex discrimination case would not get off the ground.

The second issue is the idea of justifying the change. I don't know why your charity is doing this, so can't really comment on this.

I realise that the sex discrimination is probably a bit of a side issue, because obviously what you want is for the changes not to be pushed through. I just thought it might help to explain...

thanks RibenaBerry. the more i look into it the more complex it all becomes. i just hope the union action will be successful.