I have worked for my company for four years, in this time I have covered my manager and deputy manager many times whilst they have been out, I was the only other key holder and had all the responsabilites of a senior member of staff whilst they were away. I am currently on maternity leave and before I left my manager told me she was trying for a baby, I made her very aware I would like to cover her maternity leave whilst she was away if I could. Since I have been away she has become pregnant and is due to leave in October, I am due to return in November. She has recently told me that covering her job role will be my deputy manager which I have no problem with and covering his will be a girl who has been employed in our Birmingham office for two years, who is currently covering my maternity leave. Is it right that I wasn't considered for the job? And wasn't told about it so that I could apply? I have asked for a meeting with her where I plan to ask why I wasn't considered, but this has really offended me, to the point that I want to leave and am really upset about having to go back! I feel like I'm in a no win situation because it's too late now.
I am going back to work next month after maternity leave to a different role due to a re-organisation. My main concern is that I've had reduced hours agreed by my new manager but I have a feeling that the role will warrant more than the 30 hours agreed. The level which I'm at states that I should be able to work additional hours as part of my role. The whole point of me reducing my hours is to have a better work life balance. Where do I stand i.e. what number of hours would be acceptable on a 30 hour week?
I have worked for a car hire company for the last two and a half years. In December 2009 I had my baby and I'm planning on returning to work at the end of August (w/c -31st). I've had a meeting and given a letter asking to go part time, instead of full time. However I have recieved a letter back saying I have to have another meeting to explain why I am needing to work part time, to demonstrate why no one can look after my child whilst I'm at work, etc. Before having my son I worked six days a week for nine hours a day, I'm not a manager and no one else did this so I don't understand why they won't allow it, and whilst I have been on maternity leave they have hired three new part time members of staff. Where do I stand? And what is the procedure? As they have told me to take a union rep with me to the next meeting.
I am due to complete maternity leave on 23 July and then return to work on 17th August following annual leave. My employer has informed my department and is due to formally inform me that my role is being displaced to London which is two hours away via rail. All staff are being told they will have a job but it will be in London and the company will help them find other jobs in the company if possible. The timetable for this has already started and this will all be sorted out by 1st September. I have been advised I am also within these deadlines yet I do not return until 17th August and therefore feel at a considerable disadvantage. They also want me to arrange my flexible working hours to take into account I could be working in London whereas I currently live five minutes from work and wish to do compressed hours which may not be possible if I work in London. Surely I can readdress my working hours if and when my place of work changes to this displacement otherwise I could risk redundancy at a significantly reduced salary.
I am currently on Ordinary Maternity Leave (OML). I have been informed that the project that I manage will undergo a restructure and have been invited to be part of the consultation process. I have attended two consultation meetings and put business reasons forward as to why I do not think my role should be split in two. There are also personal reasons why I wouldn't want this it is effectively a demotion as half of my responsibility will be removed and I will receive a 5k pay cut. The person who is likely to get the other half of my job and receive a pay increase is someone that I manage who does not have the same level experience or qualifications as me. So in summary, they will be demoting me in both status and pay to give it someone else. Their justification for this is that they think my responsibilities are too much for one person. I struggle with this because before I went on maternity leave, at no point during my supervision meetings and appraisals did my boss have a problem with my performance against my job description - in fact my appraisal states that I exceed expectations and my job description and was given a 3k performance related increment. My temporary replacement (who was male) has left after six months of undertaking my role and he had suggested to my boss that the role be split. I feel as though this has come about because I am on maternity leave. Had I not have been on maternity leave, and continued to do a good job, I don't think my role would be being split.
Does this amount to sex discrimination? It is my understanding that as I am on maternity leave, I have extra protection. If there are suitable alternative jobs in the new structure, I ought to be offered them before they consider the rest of the team. I thought my employer would give me choice of the two positions given that they are my job split in two but my employer has asked me to apply along with everyone else. Are they breaching maternity regulations here?
Finally, I have been searching for a definition of a suitable alternative but can't come up with anything concrete. Is a demotion (not being an overall project manager anymore) in status and a 5k reduction a suitable alternative? I fear if I refuse either half of my current role, they will say that I am therefore at risk of redundancy. Would this be an unfair redundancy given that my job (as is was before the restructure) is still there to be done and there is no evidence to suggest that I am not capable of doing it? I would appreciate any guidance on this - I am sad that whilst I am trying to enjoy my time with my baby, It is being invaded with worry about this.