got a phone call this morning from my wife saying that she is getting paid off on the 22 january. 5 weeks before she goes onto maternity leave. About a month ago they said they were putting the office on performance review and have come back and said that her and 2 other girls are underperforming so are being paid off leaving only one girl in the office. No mention of what they have been doing wrong or that. Needless to say im not amused. All they have done since she told them she was pregnant was complain about needing time off for scans and doctors appointments. Anyway rant over lol

got a phone call this morning from my wife saying that she is getting paid off on the 22 january. 5 weeks before she goes onto maternity leave. About a month ago they said they were putting the office on performance review and have come back and said that her and 2 other girls are underperforming so are being paid off leaving only one girl in the office. No mention of what they have been doing wrong or that. Needless to say im not amused. All they have done since she told them she was pregnant was complain about needing time off for scans and doctors appointments. Anyway rant over lol

 

Hmmm, think there are some complex legal issues regarding laying someone off when they're due to go on, or are on maternity leave. Is she a union member? If not then CAB might be able to give you some legal advice. I'm pretty sure her employers are on dodgy ground here, especially as they are required by law to allow pregnant workers to attend maternity appointments etc

 

I'm certain form this link that her employers will have to pay her statutory maternity pay for the full 9 months anyway

 

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/before-the-equality-act/guidance-for-employers-pre-october-10/guidance-on-managing-new-and-expectant-parents/managing-pregnant-women/redundancy-and-dismissal-during-pregnancy-and-maternity-leave/

got a phone call this morning from my wife saying that she is getting paid off on the 22 january. 5 weeks before she goes onto maternity leave. About a month ago they said they were putting the office on performance review and have come back and said that her and 2 other girls are underperforming so are being paid off leaving only one girl in the office. No mention of what they have been doing wrong or that. Needless to say im not amused. All they have done since she told them she was pregnant was complain about needing time off for scans and doctors appointments. Anyway rant over lol

 

They're potentially on VERY dicey ground - how long has she worked there? I was involved in some big staff lay-offs a few years back, and the amount of hurdles that had to be jumped was immense, and that was without any one having notified us they were pregnant!

 

What do you mean 'paid off'? From what you've said, they're possibly attempting to avoid redundancy payouts... have a look on ACAS if she's been there more than 2 years!

 

Rich

Janus is right (Except about the union bit GROWL!), depending on what her contract is (Perm/Part time/Temp/Contractor, etc.) and depending how long she's worked there (Think the minimum for maternity law is a year? Not positive on that bit though) then she is legally entitled to maternity leave and temporary leaves of absence throughout her pregnancy to attend maternity appointments. I'm surprised they even have the balls (Perhaps they're too dumb, is the HR lady blonde and skinny?) to let her go when she's pregnant, because essentially in court they know full well it'll be an open and shut case, they CANNOT prove beyond any doubt that her performance isn't related to her pregnancy and therefore they CANNOT fire her/let her go.

Janus is right (Except about the union bit GROWL!), depending on what her contract is (Perm/Part time/Temp/Contractor, etc.) and depending how long she's worked there (Think the minimum for maternity law is a year? Not positive on that bit though) then she is legally entitled to maternity leave and temporary leaves of absence throughout her pregnancy to attend maternity appointments. I'm surprised they even have the balls (Perhaps they're too dumb, is the HR lady blonde and skinny?) to let her go when she's pregnant, because essentially in court they know full well it'll be an open and shut case, they CANNOT prove beyond any doubt that her performance isn't related to her pregnancy and therefore they CANNOT fire her/let her go.

 

they are probably fullyaware, but hoping she doesnt act on it.

That was the bit where I said dumb mate, because you'd have to be ****ing insane to try and sack someone these days if they're disabled, black, asian, pregnant, developed a medical condition, had an accident in your work place, etc. etc. etc. Anything but a healthy, English, White, man or woman really these days. As Rich666 said, the law is in favour of the employee these days, the hoops and hurdles to jump through and over with HR now are ridiculous.

you also need to look at the under performing piece, has she been made aware, what steps have they taken, have they monitored and assisted in helping her performance to be improved. Added with the comments from the Guys above they are on very dicey ground... There is a service you can contact, like the CAB but cant remember it at the moment. will pm you when I remember or get chance to ask HR..

 

For the record, the company did this to my Wife, firstly they bypassed her for promotion because she was looking at starting a family and then made her redundant when they found out she was pregnant.. we took it to tribuneral and won...

Edited December 9, 201114 yr by Harby300
addition

They have to provide her with written reasons mate, but a business can still make someone redundant whilst pregnant or on maternity leave as long as the reasons for doing so do not relate to the pregnancy itself, the fact that they have paid someone else off doesn't really help your mrs case if this went to a tribunal I'm afraid.

 

Link and quote from business.scotland.gov.uk (content writen by Government and partners, including ACAS for the business rather than the employee):

 

"It is still possible for you to fairly dismiss an employee who is on - or who has recently returned from - SML. If the reason for the dismissal is:

 

largely or wholly unrelated to her SML

not for any other reason that is unfair or unlawfully discriminatory

 

You must provide written reasons for dismissal to any woman you dismiss or make redundant while she is pregnant or on SML."

 

http://www.business.scotland.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1080903562&r.l1=1073858787&r.l2=1080898061&r.l3=1080898273&r.s=sc&site=202&type=RESOURCES

you also need to look at the under performing piece, has she been made aware, what steps have they taken, have they monitored and assisted in helping her performance to be improved. Added with the comments from the Guys above they are on very dicey ground... There is a service you can contact, like the CAB but cant remember it at the moment. will pm you when I remember or get chance to ask HR..

 

I concurr absolutely, they can't just get rid without giving appropriate warning first. Unless it was gross misconduct, but I doubt that 'under performing' counts as gross misconduct. The very fact that they are being paid off made me raise an eyebrow. If someone is no good, then you sack them fair and square. Why say 'Ok, we're gonna have to let you go, but here's some extra money first'? Reeks of piss if you ask me.

 

Then again, when you're wetting the babies head with the payout after you've successfully pulled their pants down in court (if it even got that far) and landed a fat compo cheque, then I guess you'll look back on this day as a good day.

 

Give 'em hell, fella

They have to provide her with written reasons mate, but a business can still make someone redundant whilst pregnant or on maternity leave as long as the reasons for doing so do not relate to the pregnancy itself, the fact that they have paid someone else off doesn't really help your mrs case if this went to a tribunal I'm afraid.

 

Link and quote from business.scotland.gov.uk (content writen by Government and partners, including ACAS for the business rather than the employee):

 

"It is still possible for you to fairly dismiss an employee who is on - or who has recently returned from - SML. If the reason for the dismissal is:

 

largely or wholly unrelated to her SML

not for any other reason that is unfair or unlawfully discriminatory

 

You must provide written reasons for dismissal to any woman you dismiss or make redundant while she is pregnant or on SML."

 

http://www.business.scotland.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1080903562&r.l1=1073858787&r.l2=1080898061&r.l3=1080898273&r.s=sc&site=202&type=RESOURCES

 

Like Kev said above, and you have said, they need to put it in writing the reasons why they have dismissed her. If they have been monitoring performance, and have found that she was under performing, they need to provide evidence of this. They really ought to have put steps in place to aid her to improve her performance too (re-training etc). They will need to pay her statutory maternity pay as she is so close to going on maternity leave

I'm suprised nobody asked this yet so i'm going to go ahead...

 

How long did it take to pay her off, and which russian bride site did you go with?

They have to provide her with written reasons mate, but a business can still make someone redundant whilst pregnant or on maternity leave as long as the reasons for doing so do not relate to the pregnancy itself, the fact that they have paid someone else off doesn't really help your mrs case if this went to a tribunal I'm afraid.

 

Link and quote from business.scotland.gov.uk (content writen by Government and partners, including ACAS for the business rather than the employee):

 

"It is still possible for you to fairly dismiss an employee who is on - or who has recently returned from - SML. If the reason for the dismissal is:

 

largely or wholly unrelated to her SML

not for any other reason that is unfair or unlawfully discriminatory

 

You must provide written reasons for dismissal to any woman you dismiss or make redundant while she is pregnant or on SML."

 

http://www.business.scotland.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1080903562&r.l1=1073858787&r.l2=1080898061&r.l3=1080898273&r.s=sc&site=202&type=RESOURCES

 

Whilst that's true, it doesn't sound like they've followed legal processes here. For a start, after a certain period of time, as an employee, you have to be given written warnings, verbal warnings, offered additional training, etc. etc. etc. It's the law that an employer must try to keep you employed once you have been there x amount of time.

 

I concurr absolutely, they can't just get rid without giving appropriate warning first. Unless it was gross misconduct, but I doubt that 'under performing' counts as gross misconduct. The very fact that they are being paid off made me raise an eyebrow. If someone is no good, then you sack them fair and square. Why say 'Ok, we're gonna have to let you go, but here's some extra money first'? Reeks of piss if you ask me.

 

Then again, when you're wetting the babies head with the payout after you've successfully pulled their pants down in court (if it even got that far) and landed a fat compo cheque, then I guess you'll look back on this day as a good day.

 

Give 'em hell, fella

 

Completely agree.

Be careful what you wish though, we received a cheque, maternity leave for a period and my wife said i think ill take a career break and bring the kids up...

 

six years later she was still sat on her arse...lol....

 

(must apologise as it is hard work staying at home.. but seriously did take 6 years for her to go back to work..lol..)

Be careful what you wish though, we received a cheque, maternity leave for a period and my wife said i think ill take a career break and bring the kids up...

 

six years later she was still sat on her arse...lol....

 

(must apologise as it is hard work staying at home.. but seriously did take 6 years for her to go back to work..lol..)

 

Why do think I've always worked full time? Its easier than being a full time mummy!!

Be careful what you wish though, we received a cheque, maternity leave for a period and my wife said i think ill take a career break and bring the kids up...

 

six years later she was still sat on her arse...lol....

 

(must apologise as it is hard work staying at home.. but seriously did take 6 years for her to go back to work..lol..)

 

Rose had some time off after having Michael. She initially went back to work just a month or so after giving birth, as we had help and support and we both needed to be working for our visa application to NZ (Yes ZedZilla my son was born in KawaKawa, he's a Kiwi and has two passports :D) Once we moved away from her mother, we had less support and child care aint cheap let me tell you, so for a while, a few years in fact, we were better off with Rose at home looking after Michael and me working. If she'd had a job that paid well and I hadn't, I'd have been a house husband, simple fact one of us needed to be at home :( Now we're close to my mum, she supports us a lot, taking Michael to school, picking him up, having him when we go away, etc. we can both work again.

There on VERY dodgy ground! My twin sis went through the same thing about 7 years ago. When the employer realized she's in for nasty ride she turned all nicey nicey about the maternity time off but the silly mare then tried getting rid of her because she's deaf and couldn't answer the phone!

 

I'll let you guess to who won in court?!

 

call this number sooner rather than later and explain everything, maybe worth writing stuff down before you call.

 

ACAS 0845 747 4747

Like Kev said above, and you have said, they need to put it in writing the reasons why they have dismissed her. If they have been monitoring performance, and have found that she was under performing, they need to provide evidence of this. They really ought to have put steps in place to aid her to improve her performance too (re-training etc). They will need to pay her statutory maternity pay as she is so close to going on maternity leave

 

Aye once its in writing it gives her something to review and question them on.

 

I would assume that maternity pay must go ahea but the guidance wasn't clear, certainly said if they were on SML then it must continue, it also states if she is already on SML and the position no longer exists for her to return to then they need to look at offering her another position within the company, its worth checking with ACAS if that is also the case on the lead up to SML.

 

Even if they did follow the proper process, I'd still say thay are really brave or really stupid to take a chance like that so close to maternity leave starting (that's from a employment law perspective never mind a moral perspective)....although if they HAD to lose two people to keep the business a float, and the other two girls went, then I'm sure they would have complained that zerocooled Mrs only got kept over them because the employer was too scared to do it to a pregnant woman....its a mind field!

Whilst that's true, it doesn't sound like they've followed legal processes here. For a start, after a certain period of time, as an employee, you have to be given written warnings, verbal warnings, offered additional training, etc. etc. etc. It's the law that an employer must try to keep you employed once you have been there x amount of time.

I think what might be different here, but its not clear at the moment until she receives it in writing, is that we're not talking about a dismisal for poor performance in this case - they were looking at redundancies and gave notice (although maybe not enough, we don't know that yet) that they were doing this, they used a comparison of staff performance to decide...this is what makes me think this is a different scenario and wouldn't require warning etc because they aren't saying she isn't doing her job right, they're just saying we need to lose staff and (in their opinion, rightly or wrongly) they are claiming that other staff in the same/similar positions are performing better.

i think its a case of requesting the reasonsw in writing and then speaking to ACAS etc and taking advice on the individual case.

I'm suprised nobody asked this yet so i'm going to go ahead...

 

How long did it take to pay her off, and which russian bride site did you go with?

 

Pregnant woman made redundant a fortnight before xmas...not really a jokey type of thread mate.

I think what might be different here, but its not clear at the moment until she receives it in writing, is that we're not talking about a dismisal for poor performance in this case - they were looking at redundancies and gave notice (although maybe not enough, we don't know that yet) that they were doing this, they used a comparison of staff performance to decide...this is what makes me think this is a different scenario and wouldn't require warning etc because they aren't saying she isn't doing her job right, they're just saying we need to lose staff and (in their opinion, rightly or wrongly) they are claiming that other staff in the same/similar positions are performing better.

i think its a case of requesting the reasonsw in writing and then speaking to ACAS etc and taking advice on the individual case.

 

100% the ACAS advice needs to be followed. My point is, if they do need to make people redundant, they better have the full business decision process at hand in court and if they don't need to lose people, but suddenly decided they wanted to prove certain people weren't performing and intend to hire new people (Hasn't been disclosed which case is the case) then they're brave or very very very very very very dumb. lol

100% the ACAS advice needs to be followed. My point is, if they do need to make people redundant, they better have the full business decision process at hand in court and if they don't need to lose people, but suddenly decided they wanted to prove certain people weren't performing and intend to hire new people (Hasn't been disclosed which case is the case) then they're brave or very very very very very very dumb. lol

 

Absolutely - and I'm sure in the first link I posted, it said that if the woman made redundant was within 15 weeks of her due date then the company has to pay full SMP but def check with ACAS

Absolutely - and I'm sure in the first link I posted, it said that if the woman made redundant was within 15 weeks of her due date then the company has to pay full SMP but def check with ACAS

 

Wonder if that's what the "paid off" bit referred to? Maybe they're paying her the SMP but letting her go anyway? That would make a tribunal a little more difficult, but they'd still need to prove they HAD to downsize or that they could NOT possibly make her better at her job with some training/extra resources/facilities and that her recent performance during the pregnancy wasn't related to the pregnancy.

Wonder if that's what the "paid off" bit referred to? Maybe they're paying her the SMP but letting her go anyway? That would make a tribunal a little more difficult, but they'd still need to prove they HAD to downsize or that they could NOT possibly make her better at her job with some training/extra resources/facilities and that her recent performance during the pregnancy wasn't related to the pregnancy.

 

Possibly...here's a quote from that website

"Redundancy during pregnancy

If an employee’s position is made redundant before her ‘qualifying week’ (the 15th week before the expected week of childbirth) she will not qualify for Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) but may be able to claim Maternity Allowance from JobCentre Plus. If she is made redundant in or after the qualifying week and she meets the qualifying conditions for SMP, she is entitled to receive SMP for the full 39 week period.

 

An employee who is made redundant during her pregnancy will be entitled to any redundancy and/or notice pay that she qualifies for.

 

It is unlawful to select a woman for redundancy because she is pregnant. She may have a claim for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination, irrespective of her length of service"

Pregnant woman made redundant a fortnight before xmas...not really a jokey type of thread mate.

 

Okay lets be all gloomy 2 weeks before christmas over something that wont present any good news for at least the next 6 months.

 

What is life without a bit of humour.

Possibly...here's a quote from that website

"Redundancy during pregnancy

If an employee’s position is made redundant before her ‘qualifying week’ (the 15th week before the expected week of childbirth) she will not qualify for Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) but may be able to claim Maternity Allowance from JobCentre Plus. If she is made redundant in or after the qualifying week and she meets the qualifying conditions for SMP, she is entitled to receive SMP for the full 39 week period.

 

An employee who is made redundant during her pregnancy will be entitled to any redundancy and/or notice pay that she qualifies for.

 

It is unlawful to select a woman for redundancy because she is pregnant. She may have a claim for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination, irrespective of her length of service"

 

 

Pretty cut and dry isn't it, my impression from that is she can get what she is entitled to.

I think what might be different here, but its not clear at the moment until she receives it in writing, is that we're not talking about a dismisal for poor performance in this case - they were looking at redundancies and gave notice (although maybe not enough, we don't know that yet) that they were doing this, they used a comparison of staff performance to decide...this is what makes me think this is a different scenario and wouldn't require warning etc because they aren't saying she isn't doing her job right, they're just saying we need to lose staff and (in their opinion, rightly or wrongly) they are claiming that other staff in the same/similar positions are performing better.

i think its a case of requesting the reasonsw in writing and then speaking to ACAS etc and taking advice on the individual case.

 

Missed that in the quick read, thats a fair point and needs a closer look.. Absolutely need the reasons in writing first and take from there...

 

Have to agree from a morale perspective it has to be questioned.. if only the law took morales into the equation....