Maternity Grievance and sick leave

[Mumof3kidss]

Unfortunately, whilst being on maternity leave my employer has sourced a new line manager without informing me, given that this was a role I was training and preparing for prior to maternity leave, I am most aggrieved and have raised the grievance with HR. During my ML I have received a lot of pressure from my manager to have keeping in touch days, something which I’ve not felt up to doing. a culmination of those two things have caused a lot of undue stress, and with my return to workday fast approaching I’m contemplating seeing my GP and taking some time off for the stress.

I just wondered if any of your lovely parents had any thoughts on the above and if you’ve been through anything similar? I’m feeling pretty bad about taking further time off.

Do you have access to your emails or intranet or any of the ways they advertise internally?

As a HR ProfessionaI wuth 30 + years in, this could be tricky.

The new manager hasn't taken your job.
I doubt you have any written proof that they promised that the job was yours.

You didn't apply for it and they chose a lesser qualified candidate for it. You were encouraged to keep in touch via KIT days and you haven't, so they may not have thought you were interested. If you were as passionate about progressing in your career, as you are about the current situation, they may have dealt with it differently.

Do you get on with your line manager? Did they have any reason to think you may not return?

Where they probably did go wrong, was in not notifying you that the job was being advertised, so you didn't get the opportunity to apply. Having said that, it may come down to their policies on keeping in touch with women on maternity leave. You weren't interested in the KIT days. They cou be their evidence that they tried to engage with you.

Do you know what experience the candidate has? Qualifications alone are not the only thing to be considered. Why would they employ someone who cannot do the job? How would that benefit the company? Do you think its personal against you? If so, why? You don't have to answer any questions..it's for you to think about.

You may not like hearing some of this, but you haven't presented yourself in the best light and I suspect this is why they have gone the route they have.

The going off sick is something we see a lot of disgruntled employees doing, when they don't get what they want. It won't surprise them. It doesn't give the impression you're resilient. It will simply make them believe they did the right thing.

Going forwards, do you still want to work here given what's happened and how do you think raising a grievance will impact on working relationships going forwards.

Grievances are stressful and you're already wanting to take time off work stress and it's not even at the investigation stage. There's plenty more stress to come. If they don't want you in that role, what are you hoping to gain here? What would be a suitable resolution for you? Are you looking for a settlement?

Your comments really are predictive and not at all constructive.

There is no point to your comment as the onus is not on me. I won’t be responding to you any further.

Also an HR professional of 30+ years.

The employer should have given the OP the opportunity to apply for the role. The fact she was on maternity leave should have been irrelevant, but she wasn't informed of the post and she wasn't given the opportunity to apply. To me, that is intrinsically unfair. The OP was denied the opportunity to go for this role because she was on maternity leave. That is clearly discriminatory.

All of the rest is white noise.

First and foremost, at no point have I said it was my job.

I have not been given the opportunity to apply and be considered for a role, that my line manager had been preparing me for, to the extent that I covered his role prior to going on maternity.

KIT days do not indicate an employees willingness to continue or progress employment. I maintained informal contact with colleagues and had regular texts / calls with my line manager. So there has been ample opportunity to inform me of the role availability.

considering the organisation requires chartered status for roles, and the candidate did not have so much as a basic certificate in the respective field, I feel something is amiss. Experience wise, we are talking less than a year. whereas, I am chartered with over 19 years experience.

I’m entirely aware of the stresses involved in grievances, however I feel it is a completely different stress to that which I have experienced.

@Mumof3kidss I think you have been treated really shittily and if I were in your shoes, I would be thinking of moving elsewhere. Your manager has let you down bigtime by not letting you know this role was being recruited, so personally I would find it hard to trust him/her again!

I hear you - I've been passed over for roles that should have required chartered status but when some of my 'superiors' have one A level, it was clearly never taken seriously.

It seems really off that none of your colleagues mentioned the role being advertised either. I know they don't have a responsibility to tell you but it's the sort of thing I'd tell my colleagues who are away.

Why, if your peers knew of your ambition to progress to that role did none of them let you know it had come up?

I would be pissed with them, especially if I thought they were more friend than colleague.

Maybe it has been done deliberately to keep you out of the role 🤔

Honestly, I think in your shoes I would extend maternity leave if you can afford to do so and give yourself to time to work out what you want to do. Do you need to return to the same company to get enhanced mat pay, for example? Otherwise, I would dip your toe and see what is out there, but do it on your own terms when you are ready to leave baby, there is no rush and you will not get this time with them again. They have royally messed up in a legal sense, but unless this person screws up and gets fired this is unlikely to be resolved within the timeframe of you going back to work - you may get some compensation etc later, but even if you go down that road, your relationship with the company may well sour to the point that you don't want to be there any more and possibly that they don't want that either. I'm not saying don't pursue it - absolutely do - but if you intend to stay then the situation is pretty delicate and frankly you may be better off having more time with baby to and then cutting your losses, going elsewhere and letting them really feel what they've missed out on. Sadly, we are all replaceable at work, some more easily than others given - but you are not and never will be replaceable to your little one.

thanks - I’m going to follow up on this as I’m not sure my employer is complying.

Yes you should have been told about the vacancy.

However if you are refusing to do KIT days for training relevant to your current role, I wouldn’t fancy your chances of being given a promotion.

I don’t think stress leave is appropriate here, put in your discrimination grievance and let them address it.

Er no, they didn’t “probably go wrong”, they broke the law. It’s a legal requirement to inform women on maternity leave of suitable vacancies. Shocking that a supposed HR professional doesn’t know this and just goes to show the level of difficulty women on maternity leave face when HR people don’t know or follow the law.

OP does your company have an internal vacancies site? Mine says the onus is on the employee to check however I suspect if there was a direct promotion available it wouldn’t be sufficient and you’d need to be specifically told.

I don’t think it’s a good idea to go off sick.

It’s illegal to discriminate against a woman for not doing KIT days with a young baby ffs.

@YaWeeFurryBastard I am not saying it’s legal, clearly her employer is not all that bothered about following the law though…..

I disagree. It’s wise to, but depends on circs.

hrcentre.uk.brightmine.com/tasks/inform-an-employee-on-maternity-leave-of-a-job-vacancy/150792/

I agree with Sandy. (HR professional of 20+ years.)

The legal requirement is not to disadvantage the OP. No legislation states that the OP must be directly informed of any opportunities provided she has access to the information whilst off (if they’re advertised or she still has access to the intranet etc).

Sorry I’m not saying what you want to hear.

Try contacting pregnant then screwed. I think they have a helpline. Good luck op.

This is standard practice. And you are allowed to refuse whilst on mat leave. But they legally have to inform you of training days relevant to your role. You chose not to attend. You made a valid choice, but possibly this allowed you to miss important information regarding career progression. You should also be treated without prejudice. But you may have missed critical training sessions relevant to obtaining the position.

Rather than going off sick, if you have more than 8 weeks until your return date, you may have sufficient notice to extend your mat leave if you're returning before a year. Check your contract, I'm sure this will be covered under maternity leave and notice to return etc

If and I'm saying this did happen...but is it possible that if you went on the training you would have been notified of the vacancy? Or if you explicitly said you didn't want any communication until your return, then of course you wouldn't have been notified.

Personally, I would go I'm as planned if unable to extend leave and see the lay of the land. If you're still stressed at least you tried and can go off sick then.

Of course this is stressful and has caused you anxiety but in the grand scheme of things I don't think you'll be doing yourself any favurs going off sick as a result of this the only person you're punishing is your self. You won't be proving anything other than you are not suitable for more high stress, responsibility role.

I am very well versed in HR as it's a huge part of my role and have just returned from mat leave myself. I'm by no means an expert, but with the information you've given us, I doubt your grievance will be upheld in your favour. You haven't attended requested training (which is your right), I'm assuming they have held your current position on your current salary, and while they legally have to safeguard your role or similar for a year, the business will move on in that time and roles, new and older may need filling for the continuous development of the business. Yes, you should have been notified, if they have posted these positions elsewhere which is accessible for all employees (a general email) intranet, newsletters- you may have technically been notified.

Exactly what I thought.

Sorry for the typos - baby crawling over me.

OP - can you confirm if the role was advertised in any way? “Offered alternative” sounds like it hadn’t been advertised.

This will be the crack. If nobody else in the org had the opportunity to apply, you weren’t technically disadvantaged. It’s about the comparison to others rather than protecting your career aspirations while on mat leave.

Well you’re wrong. It’s right there in the ACAS guidelines:

https://www.acas.org.uk/your-maternity-leave-pay-and-other-rights/while-youre-on-maternity-leave

While you're on maternity leave your employer must tell you:

• if jobs are being advertised
• of any promotion opportunities
• if they're planning redundancies or reorganisation

You might be able to argue at tribunal that making vacancies available on the intranet is sufficient, but I wouldn’t fancy the chances when it relates to a direct promotion. The question is would an employment tribunal consider that a woman had been reasonably informed of a promotion opportunity if it was advertised on the intranet for a short period and she wasn’t directly told? My view is no and this could amount to maternity discrimination.

It’s really concerning how misinformed some “HR professionals” are and really makes you wonder how prevalent this is. I’ve experienced it in my own company where HR are utterly incompetent and clearly not following the law.

Hence my questions about how the role was advertised. Because if it wasn’t, everyone was disadvantaged equally.

I’m not saying the employer has done right, but ultimately only a tribunal can rule they weren't.

(I’ve not lost a tribunal in those 20 years, BTW.)

If the OP has said she wants no contact during her leave, that would also change the landscape of your assertions.

I note you haven’t shared your credentials.

I completely agree you should raise a grievance because they did not tell you about the promotion, and that is something they absolutely have to do while you are on maternity leave. They also can't require you to do KIT days and shouldn't discriminate based on whether you have done any or not.

However, as others have suggested, if they employed someone far less qualified than you rather than contacting you to tell you about the vacancy, it sounds like they don't want you to have the job, and you might not have got it even if you had managed to find out and apply. I would therefore think about leaving, as I get the impression you won't be able to progress within this company. I don't agree with other posters that you come across as difficult, I think this is something you are reasonably cross about, so I would assume your workplace has a problem and I would want to leave. If I were you, as other have suggested, I would try to extend maternity leave, and also find out whether you have to return to work for a certain period after maternity leave to avoid having to repay any enhanced maternity pay. Then I would be looking to move companies in order to make the step up, rather than staying in this company which seems to have a problem with you/mothers.