Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Work

Chat with other users about all things related to working life on our Work forum.

Original poster

Am I being penalised for being on maternity leave?

28 replies

jasmine004k · 12/03/2023 21:26

I worked 2.5 months last year before going on maternity leave. I am a more senior member of the team who always gets rated “exceeds expectations” and I have always been happy with my pay increases.

My manager left the company just before I went on maternity leave and spoke to her manager to let her know how valued of a team member I am and should get put on the leadership course when I return to work after mat leave etc.

My new manager messaged me to say I’ve emailed your performance review to your work email address, I checked and I was rated “meets expectations” and was only given a 1% increase. I was really shocked, I wasn’t expecting a huge amount but giving the living crisis I thought at least 3%.

I know companies do not have to give pay rises due to inflation, but I’ve never received a pay rise that low in my 6 years of being in the role.

I worked hard in those 2.5 months, my standard never dropped. I also know they are meant to give pay rises the same as if you worked the full year.

I have a keep in touch day on Tuesday and will ask how they came to the conclusion for the 1% rise.

But if you have any advice, please let me know!

OP posts:
Hawkins003 · 12/03/2023 21:28

Is their a breakdown of how the rise is awarded?

Original poster
jasmine004k · 12/03/2023 21:31

It’s based on individual performance

OP posts:
MissAmbrosia · 12/03/2023 21:32

Did you get promoted just before ML? In our company senior management never get as a high a % for increases / bonuses as more junior staff. I guess the idea is to spread the love within the budget.

Hawkins003 · 12/03/2023 21:32

jasmine004k · 12/03/2023 21:31

It’s based on individual performance

Ah I see, do you have a comparison of others who achieved x rise vs performance ?

Original poster
jasmine004k · 12/03/2023 21:37

@MissAmbrosia I got a rise in October 2021, I was really underpaid though. And then I didn’t get a rise in April 2022 because of that payrise which was fair enough, but inflation happened since the rise and has increased again!

OP posts:
Original poster
jasmine004k · 12/03/2023 21:38

@Hawkins003 sadly not, never discussed pay rises with anyone in my actual team. Both my friends who are in other teams got around 7% rises

OP posts:
Hawkins003 · 12/03/2023 21:59

jasmine004k · 12/03/2023 21:38

@Hawkins003 sadly not, never discussed pay rises with anyone in my actual team. Both my friends who are in other teams got around 7% rises

Any signs of favourites that could help to explain it?

Original poster
jasmine004k · 12/03/2023 22:04

@Hawkins003 no I don’t think so!

OP posts:
SarahDippity · 12/03/2023 22:06

Are pay rises issued to all at the same time of year? You got one in October 2021, and now this is March 2023, so when is your next review?

Original poster
jasmine004k · 12/03/2023 22:09

@SarahDippity they are always in April. The October payrise was a one off due to me bringing up how underpaid I was

OP posts:
JavaChip · 12/03/2023 22:09

I work in an organisation with similar performance criteria etc.

Surely they consider your contributions vs others for a 12 months. So if you had 2.5 months vs others with full year your contribution will be less.

I'd take the meets and the pay rise and go with it if I were you. A payise when you've been off the majority of the year is pretty good. IMO.

I got shafted on my first mat leave and given improve based on pregnancy illness. That soon got revoked when I took it employee relations but a 'meets' would have been my max expectation given the limits to my contributions vs my colleagues.

Mat leave or any leave is still taking you out of the business and means you can't work as you normally do. It's not fair to colleagues for you to rewarded the same.

YoBeaches · 12/03/2023 22:10

It's fairly standard policy to give those on mat leave the minimum increase based on an assumption that you would have met expectations. They can't assume you would have outperformed or under performed so no you're not being penalised, especially where pay rises and bonus payments are at the companies discretion.

Yoshithegreen · 12/03/2023 22:12

Our company you get the minimum payrise while on mat leave. It’s part of our policy.

SarahDippity · 12/03/2023 22:14

Yoshithegreen · 12/03/2023 22:12

Our company you get the minimum payrise while on mat leave. It’s part of our policy.

Thus furthering the gender pay gap. I wonder why companies don’t just evaluate the performance based on performance, rather than performance divided by days.

Original poster
jasmine004k · 12/03/2023 22:35

SarahDippity · 12/03/2023 22:14

Thus furthering the gender pay gap. I wonder why companies don’t just evaluate the performance based on performance, rather than performance divided by days.

Show quote history

Very good point here!

OP posts:
Barleysugar86 · 12/03/2023 22:44

I think exceeds expectations (at least where I work) is usually tied into taking on things above and beyond your day to day role which you wouldn't really be able to do whilst on maternity, and I doubt they were putting much extra work onto you whilst you were nearing your due date. My work doesn't envision 'exceeds expectations' as a continuing state of being either, the assumption is employees are by and large 'meeting expectations' with 'exceeds expectations used to pick out exceptional performance for individuals on certain above and beyond years, who will probably go back to meeting expectations again for their next review.

Also coupled with the fact that your outgoing manager likely didn't give a rating for your 2.5 months of work, and that your new manager hasn't had an opportunity to see your work for themselves yet a meets expectations certainly seems fair.

prh47bridge · 12/03/2023 23:08

Some of the replies on this thread reveal companies (and posters) that don't understand the law.

If you only work 2.5 months of the year due to maternity leave, your employer must base your performance review on those 2.5 months. They cannot downrate your performance because you were on maternity leave. So, if your performance for those 2.5 months exceeded expectations, that must be your rating for the full year.

Any company with a policy of only giving the minimum pay rise while employees are on maternity leave is breaking the law.

Any company that says you haven't contributed as much as others because you have been off on maternity leave is breaking the law.

You should not lose out through being on maternity leave. If you do, that is maternity discrimination.

Seaswimmingdeservessunnydays · 13/03/2023 08:05

Yes to @prh47bridge

And anyone saying that the OP should expect lower ratings or pay due to having been on mat leave is part of the reason why society is so rubbish for working mothers...

JavaChip · 13/03/2023 09:17

prh47bridge · 12/03/2023 23:08

Some of the replies on this thread reveal companies (and posters) that don't understand the law.

If you only work 2.5 months of the year due to maternity leave, your employer must base your performance review on those 2.5 months. They cannot downrate your performance because you were on maternity leave. So, if your performance for those 2.5 months exceeded expectations, that must be your rating for the full year.

Any company with a policy of only giving the minimum pay rise while employees are on maternity leave is breaking the law.

Any company that says you haven't contributed as much as others because you have been off on maternity leave is breaking the law.

You should not lose out through being on maternity leave. If you do, that is maternity discrimination.

How does that work to the system described by Barley sugar.

Are you saying she should be marked as exceeds because of previous years or should have her 2.5 months extrapolated ?

Let's assume OP couldn't have done exceptional work in the 2.5 months as that's not enough time to deliver something significant that is often needed for a high rating.

Let's assume her work was excellent but not exceptional. Surely getting the meets with is reasonable ?

I don't get how it's fair for her to be marked exceptional due to previous years when it's a system that looks at years in separate performance periods.

I am all for equality and the right thing but it's illogical. She got a pay rise anyway. Saying it's the minimum seems odd. Surely no pay rise is the baseline.

JavaChip · 13/03/2023 09:18

Oh and @prh47bridge most people won't know about employment law so that's a funny thing to say - it shows how we don't know about the law.

How many people do!?

Soontobe60 · 13/03/2023 09:20

prh47bridge · 12/03/2023 23:08

Some of the replies on this thread reveal companies (and posters) that don't understand the law.

If you only work 2.5 months of the year due to maternity leave, your employer must base your performance review on those 2.5 months. They cannot downrate your performance because you were on maternity leave. So, if your performance for those 2.5 months exceeded expectations, that must be your rating for the full year.

Any company with a policy of only giving the minimum pay rise while employees are on maternity leave is breaking the law.

Any company that says you haven't contributed as much as others because you have been off on maternity leave is breaking the law.

You should not lose out through being on maternity leave. If you do, that is maternity discrimination.

The OP didn’t say she had been rated before she went in may leave as exceeding expectations for the 2.5 months though. If she has, and it’s been made clear, then she has a case for discrimination surely?

prh47bridge · 13/03/2023 10:55

@JavaChip I did not say she should be given "exceeding expectations" on the basis of previous years. However, if she was exceeding expectations for the 2.5 months she worked, that should have been her rating for the full year.

@Soontobe60 She didn't, and I did not offer an opinion on whether she should have been given that rating. I was responding to those posters who seem to think that she shouldn't get "exceeding expectations" just because she has been on maternity leave.

WallaceandGrommit · 13/03/2023 11:09

You should take notice of @prh47bridge they have given excellent advice on other threads and are often backed up by other knowledgeable posters. Their explanation is also my understanding of the relevant law.

It may also be worth getting this thread moved to legal (although that’s no guarantee that you’ll get correct advice) and taking a look at the pregnant then screwed website.

Soontobe60 · 13/03/2023 11:56

prh47bridge · 13/03/2023 10:55

@JavaChip I did not say she should be given "exceeding expectations" on the basis of previous years. However, if she was exceeding expectations for the 2.5 months she worked, that should have been her rating for the full year.

@Soontobe60 She didn't, and I did not offer an opinion on whether she should have been given that rating. I was responding to those posters who seem to think that she shouldn't get "exceeding expectations" just because she has been on maternity leave.

I guess the point is that all those who may be going on may leave need to make a point of having their PMs done before they leave in order to ensure clarity.

YoBeaches · 13/03/2023 15:38

prh47bridge · 12/03/2023 23:08

Some of the replies on this thread reveal companies (and posters) that don't understand the law.

If you only work 2.5 months of the year due to maternity leave, your employer must base your performance review on those 2.5 months. They cannot downrate your performance because you were on maternity leave. So, if your performance for those 2.5 months exceeded expectations, that must be your rating for the full year.

Any company with a policy of only giving the minimum pay rise while employees are on maternity leave is breaking the law.

Any company that says you haven't contributed as much as others because you have been off on maternity leave is breaking the law.

You should not lose out through being on maternity leave. If you do, that is maternity discrimination.

The law is clear however the discretion of a companies reward policy does play a role in decisions making. For example:

It depends on whether the pay rise is a) inflationary b) performance or c) a combination of both.

it depends on whether the 2.5 months worked were within the 'period' the performance period for this pay rise or not and therefore previously catered for

And it depends whether the 1% is any more or less than anyone else. If managers have a 'range or budget' to allocate and some people get 1% and some people get 2 or 3% then referring back to earlier points depends on whether discrimination has occurred or not.

OP has received a pay rise whilst on mat leave, question is whether it is particularly less than anyone else and if so, why. It's not clear the law has been broken here.