Returning to work to changes in job. And, do they have to cover me while I'm off? (sorry, v long)

[PeekABored]

I'm going to try to keep the details down (otherwise this will just turn into a massive whinge!) but please let me know if you need more information. My first questions is, does my organisation have any obligation to see that my role is adequately performed while I'm on ML. The second is, when returning after a year, what constitutes the same role and what to do if I think they are short changing me?

Two weeks after I began ML, my organisation announced there would be a restructuring to my department. As my department consists of me, one other permie, and an assistant who is on rolling 6 month contracts, I took this as a major slight ? why couldn't they make the announcement before I left? Even if the details weren't ironed out, they could have had an informal announcement that we were being merged in with another team. I asked my new line manager that I be notified and kept in the loop of any further changes in the department while I was away.

Last week, I went into work for the first time to show off my LO (now 6 months) and found out that my maternity cover now works remotely (from Central America no less!) and only three days a week, rather than 5 and that there is a very junior assistant working 2 days to help fill the gap. Unfortunately, she doesn't have any of the technical skills or guidance to do my job and off the record a few people came up to me and told me that they are worried that my role isn't being adequately performed. I asked my line manager about it and he said that he isn't concerned with a good job being done, that ?as long as the boat is still moving when [I] get back? that's all that matters. Part of the problem is that my cover lied on his interview and really isn't up to the job anyway. And part of the problem is that this new line manager just doesn't care about the work I do and so isn't really bothered if it gets done or not (even though it is really important!)

I'm still coming to terms with how disrespectful it was for him to say that, but legally, is that okay? Do they have any obligation to cover me while I'm away, or at least pretend to care?

Now, in addition to the initial restructuring, there is going to be another set of restructuring across the office, and budget cuts as well. I have yet to see the actual figures, but it has been implied that my role is going to take the biggest cut. I am actually supposed to have two part time assistants working under me ? the contractor I mentioned above currently gives me half her time, and I lost another assistant before and wasn't able to hire a replacement before I left. The assistant I have, and the other permie are moving to a different department and any the budget I had for the replacement will be slashed (and I've been told I can't keep on the current not-brilliant assistant). So, while I should have two pairs of hands helping me, I now have none.

Oh, I asked my line manager also to let me know when budgets for next year are decided and to send me mine and he told me that I should just focus on my LO and not to worry about it till I return to work. A. It was so condescending and B. it sort of makes a difference as to whether I return or not (or would do if I had any other options!)

I know everyone in the office is having to tighten belts but I feel like no one is fighting my corner and also that I'm being expected to come back to one fifth the budget and as a manager with no one to manage.

Am I being unreasonable? I know they don't have to give me the exact same job back after a 12 month leave but no one is talking about this as a different job although it certainly has a different spec and loss of status. Is this just a case of suck-it-up-these-are-hard-times or is there something I can do. Oh lovely ladies, let me know what you think and would advise.

And sorry for the long whinge. I knew it was inevitable...

Firstly, I'm not sure I understand why the announcement was a 'major slight' to you, just because it happened just after your maternity leave started? Far better for them to announce once they were in a position to answer with some certainty all the inevitable questions that would arise, rather than drip feeding so that the announcement could partially happen while you were at work. As long as you are kept informed and involved, that's what's important.

How or indeed if your role is covered during the year you are absent is really not any of your business tbh. It doesn't affect you. I would say in most circumstances it's in your employer's interest to make sure it's adequately covered, but if the person covering makes mistakes or doesn't perform well it won't reflect on you, it will reflect on them and on your manager for not covering it adequately.

What was so 'disrespectful' that was said to you? Do you mean the line manager saying he wasn't bothered about a good job being done? That sounds a bit short sighted and idiotic of him but I can't see it as disrespectful to you - just makes him look daft really. You weren't doing the job at the time so it was no comment about you and your performance.

It does sound potentially as though you are not being informed/consulted enough about the current changes though. If they are proposing cutting your team you should be informed/involved in that process.

What has happened to give the job they are proposing less status? Do you just mean because you will no longer have people to manage? Is your salary the same, and other responsibilities? If there are budgetary reasons to cut assistant level jobs they can't be expected to keep some on just so you've got someone to manage.

It's difficult to comment obviously, but it does sound like a combination of you maybe not necessarily being informed/consulted enough and you taking events during your maternity leave a bit too personally.

hi - thanks for the quick reply. I consider it a major slight because it was something they had known about at the run off to my leaving. They had me waste a lot of time producung work plans that under the new structure are no longer relavent. And I really think that they waited for me to leave so that they didn't have to deal with me and my reaction. They asked if I wanted to phone into an informal meeting later that week where the changes would be explained and I said yes. The next morning I got an email saying the meeting was in 90 minutes and when i called in it turns out it was being run by the CEO - not so very informal afterall and not much time to prepare either.

Re what my line manager said, I find it disrespectful because he was basically saying that it doesn't matter if my role is done well or not. Perhaps to explain, I work for a charity and I work really hard because I want to make a difference but LM basically doesn't recognise this.

I know that each thing sounds like a petty greivance but they all add up to what seems to be a lot of disrepectful management on their part I guess. But you're right, I do take it too personally.

Re the loss of status, it's not just that I won't have someone to manage but it is also that I will be expected to do the assistant level work, which means less time to do the higher level things. So while my job title will remain the same, what i'm actually able realistically to do will be downgraded.

Also it is only my assistant level jobs that are being cut. My colleage now has the woman who used to be shared between us all to her self, as a full time employee (ie no longer contract) and another manager in a simillar role to mine has had his contracted assistant hired as a full-time employee. (Other cuts around the office are in things like international travel costs.)

Also, to give a clearer picture, we are an office of 35.

So do you think it is really unreasonable for me to write a letter to my director that says I feel like the job is not the same and that regarding the budget cuts I'm concerned that my role has been consulted or adequately defended?

I don't actually think that would be unreasonable, no. I think you have some reasonable points to make about the cuts however bear in mind the following:

I have no way of knowing whether objectively a reasonable business decision in terms of how to make the necessary cuts was to reduce your assistant jobs or not. Just because they didn't involve you in the decision as much as perhaps they should have done doesn't make it the wrong decision.

Making the argument that you won't physically be able to cover all the work you were previously doing with no help might be a start, rather than emphasising the level of work you will now have to do.

Your job doesn't need to be the same. If the exact same job isn't available because of business changes during your absence, you must be offered an alternative job on no less favourable terms and conditions. In the circumstances you might struggle to demonstrate that the same job title and the same salary but perhaps the need to do a bit more admin work or something, isn't a suitable alternative. Again, I don't know.

You should also think about what you want this director to actually do about it, or if you are just registering your displeasure.

I'm not saying any of this is fair, and I don't know enough about the circumstances to judge, but the reality is you lose control of what happens at work when you are on maternity leave, particularly when you take a year off. It's just a fact. As your own job doesn't seem to be at risk, there may be little you can actually complain about or do in a legal sense.

Just to add, I have worked for several charities myself, so I do understand about perhaps having more personal investment in your job than you might in a private sector organisation. I know this can particularly be the case if you work in service delivery of some kind, which it sounds as though you do.

I also understand that if you work hard to make a difference and provide a good service, it can be gut-wrenching to see it 'go to pot' because it's not covered adequately while you are off. I know all those things are worse if you are the kind of person you are and if you care so deeply about what you do and the people you do it for.

But the bottom line is, none of that makes any of these decisions by management objectively any worse than equivalent decisions would be for someone working in an anonymous gigantic private sector organisation, for example, it just makes it all feel much worse and much more personal.

hi - thanks again for your replies. You're absolutely right and I think I can see the situation more clearly now that I've stripped the details out. A lot of it is really personality based and you are spot on there.

I think I'll write a letter in the next week or two just to express my concern about not being able to cover all of that work, make the case again for the need for extra help and to state again that I want to be in the loop with the changes. I suppose the point is that there is still a chance that they can make budgetary changes and unfortunately at my office the squeaky wheel is the one that gets the desk by the window / replacement monitor / trip overseas / assistant etc etc.

I will then sit on said lettter for a week and at the end of that period re-read to try and weed out any emotionally-driven bits.

thanks again!