HR advice, pushed out

[cat234]

Hi all,

Wanted some advice on an employment/HR situation to see if I’m thinking along the right lines/any obvious pit falls in it.

My husband’s work appear to be trying to push several people to leave (possible financial difficulties or something…one of the directors recently left under odd circumstances etc).

They had conversations/ 1 to 1s with staff asking if they were happy, but when people have raised things (pay rise, leave entitlements etc), basically been told they aren’t a good fit for the company based on that request. On top of this, he is contracted for four long days/compressed hours (specific days and hours detailed in contract), and they have told him they are changing that to five days of short hours.

He has found another job, but start date won’t be too Jan. He only has to give 1months notice. I am pregnant, due 25th Nov. He has put in writing requesting paternity for 2 weeks from when baby is born, and use the rest of his annual leave and lieu days owed in December. Would be about 5 weeks off. They have declined the annual leave.

He is thinking of going back to them saying that he is then requesting shared parental leave in Dec if the annual leave is decline (needs to give 8 weeks notice, which it would be). Am I right that they can’t decline that?

With regards to the change in contracted hours, he can also decline to change that?

If/when he hands his notice in, and they force him on garden leave, they would need to pay that, and the annual leave/lieu days owed as well? To force him to take, they would need to give him notice to take it?

Thanks…just trying to make sure we are on the right side of HR rules with this! Suspect he would have a good argument for discrimination given his pending paternity leave, and they know that changing his days worked will affect childcare plans etc. They also know that am I the higher earner, so actually the changes in hours/time off with sick child etc was more likely to be him dealing with it.

You seem determined to look for trouble, which seems a bit pointless when he has a new job starting in January. I am baffled as to why you think he has a discrimination case or why you would even want to consider it when you have a new baby coming soon.

Why doesn’t he just hand his notice in early if he wants December off and has the new job starting in January? If he had sufficient leave to cover the month anyway, then that unused leave will be in the final pay. It achieves the objective and in a fairly stress free manner.

No they probably cannot change his contracted hours by the way (I say probably just in case it was a temporary / trial arrangement) but again, as he is leaving anyway, I think he can probably drag out the debate over it until he leaves.

They won’t necessarily put him on garden leave if they want to make him redundant even if they have previously done so for other more senior people or even people at the same level. They can require him to work his notice.

It is their choice also whether to require him to take his annual leave during the notice period or to pay his accrued and untaken leave at the end of his employment period.

If he has a new job starting in January and wants the whole of December off, I would give his notice at the beginning of December, ensure that his work is all in a good position to hand over at the point he does so, take the 2 weeks paternity leave and then reopen the conversation about using his annual leave for the other 2 weeks when they already know he won’t be coming back in January and he is able to say his work has already been handed over. That will save them 2 weeks of his salary for no added inconvenience so there should be no reason for them to refuse.

It’s also worth factoring into your planning that your baby could easily arrive in early November in which case his paternity leave would all have been taken and used before he even hands in his notice to start the new job.

@cat234 you need to focus on the outcome you want to achieve. If you know 100% how much leave he has to the end of Dec and that his notice period is one month you can be pragmatic about this.

Once he has started paternity leave he can hand in notice stating that he will take paternity leave until xxxxxx and then annual leave from xxxxxx to xxxxxx. This covers his one month (+) notice so his last day of employment will be xxxxxx.

WRT changing hours he just needs to push back a little e.g. time to consult TU, notice before the change takes effect etc. and ideally try to agree he will go 5 days is 1st Dec I.e. when he should be on paternity leave. This way he keeps compressed hours until he leaves.

No employer is going to take action if you do this as realistically they have to pay for the leave and if they are looking to push people out they may welcome it.

Stick to his guns on working hours, take paternity leave and give notice to resign and the end of paternity leave.

Just that the change of his working hours would impact childcare does not make a discrimination claim. They are entitled to change his working hours back, if there's a legitimate business need for it, which, if staff have left, there could well be. The onus would be on them to prove that though. That being said, baby isn't even here yet, so as it stands, it's not impacting childcare. If they are indeed experiencing financial difficulties as you suspect, and could prove this, they'll have a much easier time proving in a tribunal that there actions are legitimate and not from a place of discrimination.

If going down the discrimination route, you'd need to be clear exactly what acts were discriminatory, when they happened (the date of them), as you'd have 3 months to lodge a claim with a tribunal.

He is entitled to certain rights and considerations as a parent in regards to childcare etc, but this does not mean the company has to accept just anything in order to give these considerations. IE - you can't just bleat childcare and expect that they must, by law, roll over, it just doesn't work like that. It sounds as if indeed, like you say, the company is experiencing difficulties hence the changes going on, and as I previously mentioned, if they can properly justify legitimate business needs for these, even where they would leave certain people disadvantaged, a tribunal may well still rule in their favour. The exact same way that a disabled person who has a high level of absence, or who would struggle with the new contracted hours due to a disability, can still be let go, or meet a refusal from the business to not enforce the new contracted hours on that person, if there is a business need for it and not doing so would impact the business too much.

I would be very careful here. Not all businesses get the fear when the word discrimination is mentioned - plenty get their backs up & fight it tooth and nail, and many win. If you go this route he's likely to be on the receiving end of worse behaviour from them (not that this is right) but is something you need to be prepared for. Not exactly what you want to be dealing with when you want to be enjoying the arrival of baby.

It sounds a shit situation, and it's good he has a new job lined up. Having been through a tribunal myself for discrimination, it's not for the faint hearted and if he has a new job lined up anyway, I'd be a bit more modest about what to expect from them, and not so quick to jump to the discrimination angle - I'd be working with them to find a solution, simpler and less stress for you all. What I'm trying to say is, it's fine to be firm, but don't be overly confident if they are having issues that you have an argument for discrimination and therefore can be difficult about it, because reading your case, I'm not so sure, it does sound as if they are having difficulties.

Meant to add.

You'd need to prove the impact of any discrimination claim on him anyway. If he already has a new job lined up, he's facing very little impact/loss, unless he's taking a big pay cut at his new job. A tribunal is really very likely to find that he's suffered no real loss anyway as he has a new job lined up already.

Given this, my honest advice is drop the discrimination angle. There may well be elements of this, but going from this angle, with the fortunate position he's in (having a job lined up already) is unlikely to do you any favours at all. The business certainly won't like it, which, if there's no big outcome for him to go from this angle, means he's just going to be on the receiving end of more shit behaviour from them, for nothing.

I'm not saying this is the way it SHOULD be, just this is the way it often IS.

@Opinionsneededd this thread is from October 2023. The tribunal ship has already sailed.

If they're making people redundant how long has he worked there? Personally I wouldn't hand in notice or push for the leave - paternity leave sure with notice, but if they were to make him redundant wouldn't they be the best outcome? Reasonable pay out? So I'd just sit tight until the notice period myself x

Yes, you're quite right. It came up in 'trending', for some reason? I don't search the boards - only use the trending feature.