Risk of redundancy mess!

[fpmum]

Im on maternity leave and there is a reduction in posts. The only difference apart form that is the location; which is a 10 min walk away from where I live.

I was told Id have to attend a redundancy assessment discussion, which turned out to be more like an interview. I was scored on skills and knowledge and nothing else.

The decision as to whom was to be kept in the original post was decided on this discussion. I was informed, by phone, 4 days later that I was still at risk of redundancy.

After quoting regulation 10 to HR querying whether one of the posts should be kept aside, I got told I would be treated the same as others. This is now the case with other alternative posts that are on the redeployment list. I have to go to 2 interviews tomorrow and it will be a competitive process. I will have to be the best candidate to secure another job. I know, by law, I should not have to compete for a suitable alternative post.

I have contacted ACAS, 3 times,Working Families and EHRC who have all said my rights have been breached and the employer is very wrong in how they are dealing with me.

Ive written a letter of grievance, after failed attempts to solve this informally. Ive contacted my union who dont think mt case will be even picked up by a lawyer, . They hinted that due to the severity of cuts being imposed by my employer, the process has to be fair to everyone.

To a degree I can appreciate that but I know I have additional rights because Im on maternity leave.

But no one seems to be interested to help, and are ignoring what Ive been told by ACAS , EHRC and Working Families.

IS this due to ignorance of the law or is the law vague in this case.? (regulation 10)

Can the post, as it still exists,have been considered a "suitable alternative vacancy" or does that term mean otherwise? Im very confused!

I would really appreciate some advice and help.

I have read similar threads on this site and found it useful in some respects of my sitiation.

Its affecting my health, impacting on other family members and has greatly affected important, precious time I should be spending with my baby. Instead I cant stop thinking about this whole mess and the obvious injustice thats apparent. I feel like banging my head off a wall.

I think I've just responded to your query on another forum fpmum , but for the benefit of anyone else reading and just in case it's a massive coincidence, I'm going to copy and paste my advice here as well.

The law isn't quite clear about the definition of 'suitable alternative vacancy', when it's a headcount reduction rather than a restructuring with new posts.

Personally I have been advised by lawyers and in turn have always advised employers that they should err on the cautious side and consider Reg 10 applies whenever there is a selection process involving an employee on maternity leave and deciding who will remain in whatever posts are left, even if the posts are remaining the same.

However the legislation does say 'alternative vacancy'. I know some interpret that as only applying to completely new jobs in (for example) different departments, which are actually vacant and argue that in the case of a headcount reduction, the posts aren't vacant. Some interpret it as if the jobs are changing at all, even slightly, then they 'count' as vacancies until filled by one/some of the individuals affected.

I think the spirit of the law here is that if it is possible to keep an employee on maternity leave, the employer should do so, but as the wording can be interpreted differently, and there is a distinct lack of case law on this exact point, it's a case of making an argument and deciding how far you are prepared to take it.

In your case it sounds as though the actual jobs are remaining the same, so I would suggest making an argument that until those jobs are filled by using the selection criteria proposed, they are 'vacant' and as such should be offered you as a priority. If the jobs are in a different location that adds to the argument that they are 'vacant' until the selection criteria have been applied.

It does sound however from your post that your employer is also saying you shouldn't have priority when it comes to completely different vacancies elsewhere in the organisation. That isn't true. If your own post is definitely made redundant, and there is a suitable vacancy, you should be offered it even if another candidate is more suitable. Presumably the alternative posts elsewhere you mention are actual vacancies to be filled, not headcount reductions taking place elsewhere? It is perfectly ok to put you through some kind of interview process or similar to decide whether or not you are suitable, as long as the process isn't competitive against colleagues.

Have you actually spoken to a lawyer yourself, rather than relying on your union? I would suggest you do so. You may have legal cover with your house insurance, many people do, so check that. Many lawyers will also give you half an hour of free advice, so will be able to offer you their assessment of your case without necessarily charging you.

Hi FBB..its not a massive coincidence re post!. Thanks so much for taking the time to respond. Its much appreciated and Ias hoping you would reply.

The people have been selected for the new service to operate in one unit so the vacancies have been filled. They havent moved yet though.

As to other vacancies; Ive been told that I meet the criteria for several posts but I MUST go through a competitive procedure. I initially gor told by HR that I would have first refusal of other posts. Then I got told that information had to be retracted following legal advice that I would be treated the same as other who were not on maternity leave but at risk of redundancy, like myself. I know this is wrong and this is my biggest bug bear.

Having to attend 2 interviews in one day is daunting. I got told I would be holding up the redeployment process for everyone else if i could not come to these interviews. !!

Even if I do get a job out of this I still want to take further action due to my maltreatment. Im a firm believer in justice Im not a trouble maker!

If you do get a job you will probably as you say want to consider a grievance. That will force them to look into your concerns and hopefully might prevent someone else being treated the same way in future.

But you also need to think about what outcome you want. Obviously if you don't get a job you will have significant loss as a result of their not following the law, you will have a dismissal you can appeal and a sex discrimination claim you can make if you would like to do that.

The trouble is if you do get a job, you have very little in the way of any adverse effect to demonstrate that has resulted from their actions. A bit of inconvenience attending meetings and a degree of worry about your future. No financial loss at all. So in terms of action beyond a grievance, there's very little you could realistically do.

OK.
SO Ive been to 2 competitive interviews. I was the preferred candidate for 1 post I will happily take (pending the days fit in with childcare and are the same days I worked before going on my maternity leave).

Next query..

Ive been told I will have to have a 4 week trial before a permanent contract is given. Do I have to do this? After all, I am protected to a degree during maternity leave.

My employer could still try and get rid of me during that 4 week trial, especially as I have kicked up a stink ( in a nice way ) over this whole debacle...by then my mat. leave will be over.

BTW. My employer STILL has not answered my questions over maternity laws. They dont seem to have a clue.

I would urge mothers going back to work to look fully into their legal rights, particularly in this age of rising redundancies.
I didnt and wish I had.

Advice anyone? Thanks!

Yes a 4 week trial is fine and perfectly usual, to determine whether you are suitable or not. You are protected during maternity leave in that if there is a suitable alternative available you must be offered it. However asking you to complete a trial period to decide whether a post is suitable is fine.

Your mat leave would be over, but that won't make any difference. The law is that if there is a suitable alternative at the time your previous job ends, you must be offered it. If the trial period is to determine whether the job is suitable, and it is found unsuitable, then they are not obliged to offer it you anyway. If they say that, then the argument becomes about the suitability or otherwise of you for the role. But if you've been to a competitive interview and have been found to be the preferred candidate, it would be astonishing if they turned round and said you weren't even suitable for the job, so you should be fine.

Have other people got to do trial periods in a similar way?

Im not sure that all people have trial periods.

I got notice of redundancy today ( even though I have been offered a post) and it states that " I will receive my normal contractual pay during the 12 weeks of my redundancy notice period" !!!
Does this mean I can ask for this payment or am I chancing my arm; the person this letter came from is the one I wrote my grievance to ! Oh, and thats not being upheld despite the fact they have not given me an answer with regard to anything to do with maternity rights andhow they have ignored them.

grrr

The letter means you will get paid as normal during your notice period, so you won't need to ask for it if that's the case. If you are taking another job then you won't be serving a notice period so that won't apply.

Thanks, once again flowerbeanbag.!