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.

@Mumof3kidss I think you have been screwed over, I think you're right to be raising a grievance and I don't agree with the people saying you are too abrasive and it's all your own fault because you didn't do 3 days training away when your baby was 3 months old. Having said all that I'd be very careful about going out on sick leave. It shouldn't be this way, but coming on the back of a grievance it will become a situation the company wants to resolve by getting you out of the place as fast as possible. If you can pursue the grievance and either return to your old job or extend your maternity leave I would look at that instead. Companies just don't want to employ people who go out sick on the back of performance or grievance issues.

There hasn’t been a tribunal test case to the best of my knowledge so it’s currently unknown whether a tribunal would deem advertising on the intranet to be “fair notification” of an internal promotion. My advice would be the employer should cover their arse and make sure there’s no room for ambiguity about whether they’ve discharged their duties to their employer.

There’s no indication the OP has said she wants no contact and the fact she’s been informed of potential training opportunities for KIT days suggests she hasn’t, so that really is a bit of a reach.

It’s pretty grim that employers try and weasel out of giving fair notification of opportunities to employees on maternity leave.

I note you haven’t shared your credentials.

This is such a silly comment. Anyone on the internet can claim to have whatever “credentials” they like, doesn’t make it true! I know plenty of people in HR who claim to have 20 years experience and are frankly bloody useless and not keeping up with their CPD and knowledge of the current law appropriately (not saying this is you). My advice to anyone is seek your own advice/legal confirmation and don’t just take what HR say as gospel.

I had no idea employers were meant to send vacancies to those on mat leave, seems a massive amount of work. OP it's very confusing how you refused KIT days but yet would have wanted to spend time going through the recruitment process for a promotion? You can't always have it both ways. And you get paid for KIT days, I'm doing as many as I can! I can't see how a GP will sign you off for stress at work when you haven't been at work. It won't set a great message to your employer either.

My manager letting me know they’re moving on and that their role is up, isn’t a massive amount of work really, is it?

I have had 2 KIT days which were both “catch up” meetings with my boss. During the second of which I was informed I had a new line manager. I only refused the 3 day course away from home.

The recruitment process is done via Teams so hardly the same kettle of fish as travelling to the other side of the country.

Was the role advertised in any way?

Honestly op. I think you have a right to raise this as a grievance . You should have been informed while on mat leave. I think however going off on stress leave is a poor decision on your part however. In my industry that information gets around and does impact future opportunities particularly when your relationship with your current employers is a bit fractured. It's very hard to raise grievances in a company and continue to work there ( at least happily). You may end up looking for a new role in a different company and sick leave can be requested .

You have the right to raise a grievance and it sounds clear that they have not acted correctly here by not informing you about a promotion you had an opportunity to apply for.

I also don't blame you for not attending a 3 day training course far from home as part of your KIT days.

But as other posters have said, think carefully about the outcome you want here. Going off sick is, in my opinion, not a good option, unless you have no intention of returning to work and are just looking for a pay off as a result of the grievance. If you want to return and continue to build your career in this company, then going off sick will make you look petty and it will undoubtedly damage your reputation and your chances of promotion in the future.

I think you need to look at this from your employers perspective and maybe how your approach may be perceived by others.

You have the right to protected maternity leave and maybe you have the right to raise this as a grievance, and then go on stress leave following maternity leave, but to the employer it does come across that you are a “problem maker” whether this is right or wrong. And they don’t need to keep you in a role. It could be that they want to manage you out of the company, by not giving you a promotion you wanted?

It is hard for employers to fire people especially when they have gone on maternity leave.

I meant to add, the fact you say they've passed you over in favour of someone you say is less qualified for the role suggests they don't want to promote you for some reason. So you may be better looking to move on regardless.

Look, I was also being prepared for a role when I found out I was pregnant. Then I didn’t get the role.

I didn’t get upset or start raising grievances. It is totally understandable- they need someone to do the job, now.

I still have a good relationship with these people and continue working with this workplace.

Was the role advertised? If it was then your employers have done nothing wrong.

This.

If you were offered the role OP would've you gone back to work early and not taken as much maternity?

You are pissed off - I get it - that's not the same as being stressed and getting signed off for stress gives a bad impression - certainly of women of childbearing age where this move might be looked on as just a way of extending paid maternity leave. I see so many women in the groups I'm part of advise each other to "get signed off" over stress and anxiety of leaving children after ML ends - like every other mother doesn't worry about those things but just crack on with it and return to work

OP

IANAL. But it certainly sounds like a promotion opportunity that you should have been told about.

The person who is now your line manager - were they an internal or external applicant, as you say they actually applied for a different role?

Companies are not required to notify you if theee is a vacancy. That just isn’t true. They shouldn’t unreasonably exclude you from such notifications because you’re on mat leave but they have no obligation to specifically inform you.

if you think you are too I’ll to return to work then you should take sick leave but it’s not clear that you are. It sounds more like you are unhappy because you were not offered your boss’ job. That’s not illness and you should attend work as usual.

So it would have made no difference if the role was advertised internally or not as the person appointed didn’t apply pursuant to any advert (internal or external). So there’s no discrimination there and certainly no right for you to get any particular job. Your judgment of the person’s competence is irrelevant- you’re not the employer.