# Change of contract regarding paid maternity leave - legal?



## mumofthree (12 Mar 2008)

I am working for a small private company in Dublin as a permanent employee.

The contract contains provision for paid maternity leave as long as one has been with the company for more than a year at the time of going on maternity leave.

I was working full time for them when I got pregnant, but I didn't qualify for paid maternity as per my contract, as I had not been there long enough. Fair enough.

I came back from unpaid maternity to go part-time, and NOW THAT I AM BACK was presented with a new contract reflecting my new hours BUT also removing all rights to future paid maternity benefits.

It is purely a reduction in my benefits with no compensatory pay / benefits offered.

I had previously been told verbally that a new standard contract was to be created for new employees, but that I would not be affected.

I immediately politely pointed this out (by email) and suggested we continue as before with the same terms but changing the working hours only. Obviously the maternity benefit like any benefit would be pro-rated.

No response yet.

*Question 1.*
Can they change my contract unilaterally like that? I guess so, but not sure. 

Obviously I have objected and I will continue to do so, but ultimately I guess if I don't agree to it they can say, ok, we are letting you go?

What is the legal position in Ireland on this please?

*Question 1b.*
The legal position is the main thing I need to know.

However, I would also be interested in hearing whether people think that this is bad HR practice on the part of my employer.

**************
Now, here's the complication, but a very relevant one.... 

I just found out I am pregnant again, only just a few weeks. 

I know its early days but hopefully please God all will go well. 

My pregnancy has happened after the new contract was first sent to me, but of course I had already voiced my objection and have certainly not agreed or signed it.  Note: I have a doctor's cert to say I am pregnant.

This time, based on my old contract, I would be entitled to paid maternity leave.

so, *Question 2:*
Does my current pregnant status have any bearing on the situation? e.g. maybe its illegal to change the terms of a contract regarding maternity leave once you know your employee is pregnant.

The reason I need to know is so that I know whether to disclose it (earlier than normal) if they force the issue.

Of course depending on the answer to Q1, I may not have to disclose it early, which I obviously hugely prefer.

Again, correct legal info would be hugely appreciated. 

Thanks for reading this far and for your help.


----------



## mumofthree (14 Mar 2008)

*Re: Change of contract regarding paid maternity leave - legal?  UPDATE*

UPDATE:

Contacted NERA (employment rights people) but did not get a straight answer, except to say that no-one has to accept a change in employment terms and conditions, and that if the issue is forced then I would have to go to mediation.  

Contacted Equality Commission and they said that it is not clear cut but it would seem that they have reacted to my earlier maternity leave by deciding to take away my maternity benefit, so would seem to be discriminating against me on the basis of my maternity.  They said I should take legal advice if the issue is not dropped.

Any legal eagles out there who can comment please?

Any HR gurus who can comment on whether this is bad practice or not please?

Would really appreciate your help at this time.


----------



## becky (14 Mar 2008)

You need to check what the position in relation to other part time emploees prior to the change in contracts.

Otherwise - what NERA told you is the first port of call as issues should be dealt with locally in the first instance. If you are not happy at this stage you can then go third party to a right commissioner.

IMO they are unreasonable and took out the clause because they knew it was highly likely you were going to avail of mat leave again and yes it is bad practice.


----------



## NiallP (14 Mar 2008)

Mumofthree,

A few points are relevant:

1: There is no legal obligation on an employer to pay you whilst on maternity leave

2: Any payment by an employer to an employee on maternity leave, arises in 3 ways:

(a)  As a contractual right of the employee - set out in their individual contract of employment

(b) In accordance with a Company maternity policy - usually set out in an employee handbook, or

(c) At the employer's discretion on a case-by-case basis.

For category (a) , maternity pay is a contractual right that can be enforced by an employee. A contract cannot be unilaterally varied by an employer without agreement by an employee - i.e "consideration" (usually in the form of extra pay / bonus entitlements) must pass between the employer and employee
For category (b) it is unlikely that an employee could argue that maternity right is a legal pay. Company policies may be changed at will - simply by notification. In order for an employee to claim that a legal right under an employee handbook, it must be shown that the relevant policy forms part of that employees contract with the Company.
For category (c) it is highly unlikely that an employee could assert a right in law to be paid whilst on maternity leave - particularly if there a written contract of employment in place.

It appears that your case falls within category (a). If you have not agreed to a variation of your contract, it is impermissible of your employer to unilaterally vary a specific term concerning payment on maternity leave.

If it is the case that your terms and conditions of employment were altered when you were on maternity leave, your employer may be in breach of the Maternity Protection Acts. 

If it is the case that your employer changed your terms and condition of employment due to the fact that you moved to part-time, your employer may be in breach of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001 - particularly if full time employees (with one years experience) are paid while on maternity leave. 

I would advise that you inform your employer that you intend to rely on your original contract of employment as you have not consented to any variation of your contract.


----------



## shipibo (14 Mar 2008)

I agree , the common practice is that a maternity contract is only "short term contract", and not a break in contract.   If you have not signed yet, hold out, as I believe your maternity contract has an end date, therefore you return to original contract.  Ask HR for details of why they are changing it in writing.


----------



## mumofthree (14 Mar 2008)

Quoting from Becky:



> You need to check what the position in relation to other part time emploees prior to the change in contracts.


 
I wouldn't have access to that information but I suppose if it came to mediation or whatever I suppose I would. I think all contracts would have included the maternity thing but not sure, as its a small company its hard to know what would have been done.



> Otherwise - what NERA told you is the first port of call as issues should be dealt with locally in the first instance. If you are not happy at this stage you can then go third party to a right commissioner.


 
Do you mean mediation first assuming we can't agree, then escalate to rights commissioner?



> IMO they are unreasonable and took out the clause because they knew it was highly likely you were going to avail of mat leave again and yes it is bad practice.


 
Thanks for that, I am glad its not just me who thinks that way. And thanks for your input overall.


----------



## mumofthree (14 Mar 2008)

NiallP said:


> 1: There is no legal obligation on an employer to pay you whilst on maternity leave


 
Yes, agreed.



> 2: Any payment by an employer to an employee on maternity leave, arises in 3 ways:
> 
> (a) As a contractual right of the employee - set out in their individual contract of employment
> 
> It appears that your case falls within category (a). If you have not agreed to a variation of your contract, it is impermissible of your employer to unilaterally vary a specific term concerning payment on maternity leave.


 
Yes, its in my original contract, which is the only one I agreed to and signed. I have not agreed to a variation, and have informed them that I want to keep the original terms and conditions, specifically those pertaining to maternity payment.



> If it is the case that your terms and conditions of employment were altered when you were on maternity leave, your employer may be in breach of the Maternity Protection Acts.


 
No, the amended contract was emailed to me after I returned.



> If it is the case that your employer changed your terms and condition of employment due to the fact that you moved to part-time, your employer may be in breach of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001 - particularly if full time employees (with one years experience) are paid while on maternity leave.


 
There is no other female with one year's seniority, and as far as I know, no female with the original contract similar to mine, as the only other female is new to the company and would probably have got the new contract.

I have no way of knowing whether the change to part-time was the trigger for sending me a new contract, or whether they would have done this anyway because they had created a new contract for new employees and decided to put me on the same contract. I suspect the latter. Probably a moot point. The main points arguably are that they are trying to impose a unilateral change to my contract, wholly to my detriment, with no compensatory aspect, and also that they seem to have decided to do that in light of my first maternity leave having occured.



> I would advise that you inform your employer that you intend to rely on your original contract of employment as you have not consented to any variation of your contract.


 
I have not said that in so many words, I have said that I suggest that we stick to the same Ts and Cs, and merely change the working hours to reflect my new status. I also stated that any contract would need to reflect my seniority within the company.
I could send them an email with the form of words you have suggested, but at the moment I think its best if I await their response before escalating it further, they may decide its best to not pursue this. IN any case my intent is clear in that I did not agree the contract and proposed to retain the existing benefit.

Thank you so much for the comprehensive reply, I appreciate it very much.


----------



## mumofthree (14 Mar 2008)

crumdub12 said:


> I agree , the common practice is that a maternity contract is only "short term contract", and not a break in contract. If you have not signed yet, hold out, as I believe your maternity contract has an end date, therefore you return to original contract. Ask HR for details of why they are changing it in writing.


 
thanks for your input.

What do you mean when you talk about a 'maternity contract'? 

I have my original signed contract and no other except for this new one that has been sent to me but not agreed or signed by me.

Can you explain a bit more please?

We do not have any HR, its a small, owner-operated company.


----------



## becky (14 Mar 2008)

mumofthree said:


> I wouldn't have access to that information but I suppose if it came to mediation or whatever I suppose I would. I think all contracts would have included the maternity thing but not sure, as its a small company its hard to know what would have been done.
> 
> I was only wondering in case there is a different clause for part-timers but if this was the case they all would have a case.
> 
> ...


----------



## mumofthree (14 Mar 2008)

> What is very important here is they told you that you would not be affected by the new contract changes. It would be great if you had it in writing but even so try and remember who informed of you of this and when.


 
Good point. As it was not something I expected to change, I did not ask for that statement in writing - obviously would have sounded very mistrustful and I think no-one would have expected to then be presented with a changed contract. 

In any case, I know exactly the day/time/meeting/person when this was said so can't do any better than that.



> I'd be very surprised if the Rights Commissioners doesn't throw the book at them.


 
Great to hear that view. Hopefully it will not come even close to that, am sure we can sort it out, but nice to have a feel for roughly where I stand before proceeding. 

I intend to adopt a wait-and-see approach, they may not get around to pursusing this, and hopefully in about 9 weeks time I will be able to inform them of my condition. By that stage, I doubt if they would have the nerve to pursue it, but can only wait and see.

Thanks again Becky.


----------



## mumofthree (14 Mar 2008)

One other point has occured to me:  

It seems from your responses that what they have done is probably dubious / dodgy / on shaky ground -  regardless of my current pregnancy, at least that is what I think you are saying?

So I don't really have to mention it to them straightaway if they continue to pursue this issue and try to get me to sign a new contract.  

It makes sense for me to refuse to sign regardless of my condition.  

I guess my condition just makes the issue all the more real to me, and I guess also means that the issue will have to come to a head in about 9 weeks even if they let it slide until them.

So, having said all that (just trying to get this straight in my head), I guess I am ok to keep schtum for now, which is really the most important thing for me right now.


----------



## Diziet (15 Mar 2008)

I think you should write to them and make it clear that you do not accept the amended contract. You do not have to disclose your pregnancy.

Raise a formal grievance if necessary. If it comes to tribunal you have to demonstrate that you gave your employer a chance to amend their error.

You should not have different terms just for being a part timer, other than the working hours. There is an EU directive precluding this. An hour of legal advice would be money well spent.

I am not a lawyer but have had exposure to employment law.


----------



## mumofthree (15 Mar 2008)

Thanks Diziet.

I think I will await their next move, at least for a few weeks.  If I send in a statement saying that I am going to rely on my existing contract, it could antagonise them.  I still have to work with / for them and don't want to jeopardise good working relations.  I'm sure that neither do they, as our work is specialised and they do not find it at all easy to get experienced people.

I think there is a fair chance they will (eventually) agree to continue with the old contract, if and when they get round to discussing it with me.

If they give any indication that they want to impose the new one, I will at that point send in the statement as you and Niall suggest.

If I don't hear anything within a few weeks, I will send them an email asking them to have a meeting to resolve the issue, and I guess probably will mention at that stage that I am continuing to rely on my existing original contract.

If they still don't revert by the time I am ready to tell them my news, I will send a further email asking for a meeting.  

If that doesn't happen I will just have to inform them of my status and take it from there, continuing to insist that I am relying on my original contract.

I hope that this will indicate that I gave them every chance to amend their error, and will document it and keep copies.

Hopefully it will get resolved quickly and amicably in my favour.


----------



## mumofthree (19 Mar 2008)

*Update: reply from the Equality Authority.*
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In regard to your first question under the Maternity Protection Acts 1994 and 2004 an employee is entitled after maternity leave 

- to return to work 
- with the same employer, or the new owner (if there was a change of owner) 
- to the same job 
- under the same contract and 
- under terms and conditions that are 
(i) not less favourable than those that would have applied to the employee and 
(ii) incorporate any improvement to the terms and conditions to which the employee would have been entitled if she had not been absent. 

*An employee on maternity leave is deemed to be in the employment of the employer while absent. The employee is to be treated as if she is not absent.* The absence will not affect any rights or obligations related to the employee's employment conferred by legislation, contract or otherwise. 

An Information booklet "About the Maternity Protection Acts 1994 and 2004 Information on entitlements under Maternity Legislation" is available to download from our website www.equality.ie. 

In the event of a dispute under the Maternity Protection Act you may refer a claim to the Rights Commissioners within 6 months from the date on which the employer is informed of the initial circumstances relevant to the dispute. 

_Rights Commissioners_ 
_Tom Johnson House_ 
_Haddington Road_ 
_Dublin 4_ 

_Telephone: 01-613 6700_ 
_LoCall: 1890 220 222_ 
_Website: www.entemp.ie_ 


Regarding your second query if an employer were to discriminate against an employee because she was pregnant she could take a case on the gender ground under the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2007. If you feel that you have been discriminated against on the basis that you have availed of maternity leave or about to avail of maternity leave you could lodge a claim for discrimination under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 -2007. 

A complaint of this nature on the gender ground should be raised in the first instance with your employer in order to provide an opportunity for resolution of the problem. However, although this may be desirable, it is not a requirement of the Act. In any event if you feel you are unhappy with your employer’s response to your complaint you may take a case yourself before the Equality Tribunal.(see contact details below) and ask for a Form EE-1 (Complaint of discrimination in relation to Employment). The Equality Tribunal is the quasi-judicial body established to investigate, hear and decide on claims of discrimination. 

Please note that anybody wishing to make a claim of discrimination must do so within six months of the incident. 

A booklet on the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2004 is available to download from our website www.equality.ie. 


The Equality Tribunal 
3 Clonmel Street 
Dublin 2 

Phone No: (01) 4774100 or E-mail_*info@equalitytribunal.ie*_ 
_*www.equalitytribunal.ie*_ 


On the wider issue of terms and conditions of employment or unfair dismissal you may wish to contact NERA 

The National Employment Rights Authority 
O'Brien Road 
Carlow 

LoCall 1890 80 80 90 
info@employmentrights.ie 
[broken link removed] 

-----------------------------------------

This was very useful information. 


I replied asking them to clarify whether the fact that I returned to go on a part-time basis would have any bearing on their right to change my contract / benefits. 


Will share the reply when I get it.


----------



## sparkey (19 Mar 2008)

mumofthree, 
 From what I can understand you want to change the working hours of your existing contract but dont want your employers to change the maternity part of the contract.

If you want to change your hours then it a brand new contract so your employer can request what they want into the NEW contract.

Until the new contract is agreed you are covered by your old contract and your employer can insist that you work your full existing contract hours, not your reduced hours.


----------



## mumofthree (19 Mar 2008)

Thanks for your response sparkey.



sparkey said:


> mumofthree,
> From what I can understand you want to change the working hours of your existing contract but dont want your employers to change the maternity part of the contract.


 
Correct.



> If you want to change your hours then it a brand new contract so your employer can request what they want into the NEW contract.


 
May I respectfully ask, are you sure about that? It's just that some pretty experienced / specialised people have not made that comment. 
That's not to say that you are wrong, its just I thought it would be considered an amendment to the contract to change the hours. It would be helpful if you could explain a bit further the basis of your opinion on that please? 



> Until the new contract is agreed you are covered by your old contract and your employer can insist that you work your full existing contract hours, not your reduced hours.


 
OK, but they have not done so to date, and they have paid me pro-rata, so I think its fair to say that this part of the working arrangement has been agreed and is being borne out in practice, without any new contract being agreed or signed.

The maternity part has not been agreed, in the sense that I have told them in writing that I see it as contradicting the existing current contract, and as contradicting the earlier verbal comment that any changes to maternity benefit would not apply to me, and that I want to stick to the original terms and conditions in this respect.

Further explanation would be appreciated if you could please.


----------



## mumofthree (27 Mar 2008)

OK, am going to have to assume that the opinion given by Sparkey is not correct as I have not received any further response to back it up from Sparkey or anyone else - sorry Sparkey.

Response from equality.ie to follow.....


----------



## mumofthree (27 Mar 2008)

I replied asking to equality.ie them to clarify whether the fact that I returned to go on a part-time basis would have any bearing on their right to change my contract / benefits. 

Response from equality.ie:

"Following Maternity Leave an employee is entitled to return to work under the same contract and under terms and conditions that are not less favourable than those that would have applied if she had not been absent. 

If the employee returned to work on a part- time basis as requested by her this constitutes "conditions which are not less favourable than those that would have appllied if she had not been absent on maternity leave". 

The fact that she requested a change to the number of hours she will be working on return should have no adverse affect on her entitlements under the Act. 

Questions which will need to be addressed. 
Was she treated less favourably than someone who did not go on maternity leave and requested a reduction in working hours would have been treated? 
[this is hard to say as there is no example of a female who did this, as far as I can ascertain at the moment.  However, I feel that there is enough reasonable doubt there to imply that the fact that I took maternity leave once, was the cause for my benefit being removed.]

Does the company have a different policy re all part-time staff? 
[I believe that they do not, but can't ascertain this at the moment.  In any case, this was not given as the reason for removing the benefit.]

The bottom line is that you cannot be discriminated against i.e treated less favourably because you went on maternity leave. 

In the event of a dispute under the Maternity Protection Act you may refer a claim to the Rights Commissioners within 6 months from the date on which the employer is informed of the initial circumstances relevant to the dispute. "

Based on all the input that I have had so far, it seems to me that, at best, the employer is on very shaky ground in what they are trying to do. 

If anyone can add any further insight to the situation I would be very grateful, particularly anyone with a legal or HR perpective.  Thank you.


----------



## shipibo (27 Mar 2008)

I agree with you, check below .... 


[broken link removed]

*When can a part-time worker can be treated less favourably than a full-time worker?*

A part-time employee can be treated less favourably than a comparable full-time employee where such treatment can be justified in two circumstances:

Where the part-time worker's less favourable treatment can be justified on "objective grounds"
Pensions
*"Objective grounds" for less favourable treatment*

"Objective grounds" for treating a part-time worker less favourably than a comparable full-time employee are based on considerations *other than* the status of the employee as a part-time worker. 

These grounds occur where the less favourable treatment is necessary for the purpose of achieving a legitimate objective of the employer. 
However, what may be not considered as objective grounds in relation to less favourable treatment of a part-time employee may be considered objective grounds in relation to a casual part-time employee. (Casual employees are those with fewer than 13 weeks' service who are not in regular or seasonal employment or are casual based on a collective agreement to that effect.)


----------



## mumofthree (27 Mar 2008)

Very interesting, thanks crumdub12!!

All the more reason not to go changing the contract just because I have gone from full-time to part-time, as there are no 'objective gorunds' for doing so.


----------



## jo123 (28 Mar 2008)

mumofthree,

i'm in a similar situation to yours , I was wondering if you are on any of the pregnancy websites so I could "pm" you. i'm on rollercoaster. 

unfortunately  in my case the maternity leave isn't in my contract just staff handbook.

thanks


----------



## mumofthree (28 Mar 2008)

Sorry, jo123, I am not on any of those websites.  You can pm me here if you need to but to be honest I am a bit wary of giving any more details than I have done for reasons of anonymity, hope you understand.

I hope my findings so far have been of use to you.

If you have any info that you can share please put it on this thread.

Without wanting to go off the original topic too much, I would have thought (only my opinion though) that the staff handbook effectively forms part of your contract so I would think that whatever benefits and Ts and Cs it contains would be legally binding.

Do you have any other information on change of contract regarding maternity benefits that has not been covered yet?


----------



## Diziet (28 Mar 2008)

If mat leave is not mentioned in your contract then provision as in the staff handbook is what you have. The staff handbook is as far as I understand, part of the contract of employment unless specifically varied (and then there has to be good reason).

To the OP, please make sure that you are keeping dates and records of communications on this in case it goes to tribunal at some point.


----------



## shipibo (28 Mar 2008)

If contract of employment states company handbook stores these terms, its fine up to a point.


A contract can only be changed with your approval, with company handbooks, they can be changed unilaterally, you may have no input.


----------



## mumofthree (28 Mar 2008)

Diziet said:


> To the OP, please make sure that you are keeping dates and records of communications on this in case it goes to tribunal at some point.


 
Good point, will do Diziet, thanks.


----------



## mumofthree (4 Apr 2008)

Jo123,

just wondering if you had found out anything relevant to your / my situation?


----------



## mumofthree (25 Apr 2008)

Am supposed to be having this meeting finally, I had to insist (it was postponed several times).  I am absolutely clear now, based on NERA advice, that they can not change my contract without my agreement, even given that I went part time. 

It's basic employment law that you can't take away a benefit just like that.

Also, that you can't treat a PT person any different than a FT person unless there is some good and relevant reason.

So, right is on my side, legally and morally.

I have reason to believe they will try to force the issue.

I can insist that they don't.

If we can't agree, then mediation is next.

After that, rights commissioner.

Legally, I would win.  Morally, I know I would be in the right.

But here's the kicker:  It would probably cause a loss of goodwill from their side.   I could put my job, in this small company, at risk.  I know they "can't" sack me for doing this, but then again.....do I really want to go down that road?  Would it be a hollow victory?  Also, I don't think that the stress would be good for my baby.

I hate to think that someone could treat me unfairly, put their hand in my pocket and take what is mine, and that I would let them 'win'.

But I have to see the big picture even if they can't.

I reckon all I can do is point out my rights, state my case, and appeal to their sense of fair play and integrity, and hope for the best.

It's a bad state of affairs in the year 2008, but what more can I do?

Anyone got any thoughts please?


----------



## mumofthree (27 Apr 2008)

Just one final question:  

If I do refuse to agree, point blank, the next step would be for this to go to mediation.

Can someone tell me what that actually is?

i.e. who is the mediator?

Is it a solicitor?

who pays for this?

If it is the company then how can they be independent?

Hope someone can please clarify this.


----------



## berlininvest (28 Apr 2008)

If I were you I would NOT rock the boat, especially in the current climate.

If you want a career, have a career.  If you want kids, have kids.

Don't expect the employer to keep on picking up the tab.

Sorry if this sounds harsh but its probably what they are thinking.


----------



## Diziet (28 Apr 2008)

berlininvest said:


> If I were you I would NOT rock the boat, especially in the current climate.
> 
> If you want a career, have a career.  If you want kids, have kids.
> 
> ...



This is complete and utter tosh in my opinion. There are laws in this country to protect employees. The employer is not picking up the tab, they are simpy being asked to treat the OP according to the law.

For the OP, mediation has to be agreed to by both parties, it is not obligatory or unilateral. Typically the employer would pay the mediator. There are trained mediators (often solicitors) who do this work and your own solicitor wold have details.

I think whatever you do, you have drawn a line in the sand. If they do not back down, you probably won't like to stay working there. So not rocking the boat is probably not an option - the boat was rocked when they decided to amend your contract.


----------



## mumofthree (28 Apr 2008)

berlininvest - I can only assume you are trying to take a rise out of me, if so, nice one .

diziet, thanks for explaining about the mediation, great to know what to expect if they propose it (when i refuse to budge).

Wish me luck


----------



## Purple (28 Apr 2008)

berlininvest said:


> If I were you I would NOT rock the boat, especially in the current climate.
> 
> If you want a career, have a career.  If you want kids, have kids.
> 
> ...



Speaking as an employer I think that this is very bad advice. Equality legislation is there for a reason.
mumofthree, I think that your attitude and the way you have handled this in a clear-headed and logical way is absolutely superb. If this is a reflection of your attitude and ability in your work (and I have no reason to suspect otherwise) I think your employer is very lucky to have you.


----------



## mumofthree (28 Apr 2008)

Purple, thank you so much for your words of support and encouragement!  If only my own employer felt that way.  Thanks again!


----------



## shipibo (28 Apr 2008)

berlininvest said:


> If I were you I would NOT rock the boat, especially in the current climate.
> 
> If you want a career, have a career. If you want kids, have kids.
> 
> ...


 

Does,nt sound harsh , just pure dopey ...


----------



## shipibo (28 Apr 2008)

Diziet said:


> This is complete and utter tosh in my opinion. There are laws in this country to protect employees. The employer is not picking up the tab, they are simpy being asked to treat the OP according to the law.
> 
> For the OP, mediation has to be agreed to by both parties, it is not obligatory or unilateral. Typically the employer would pay the mediator. There are trained mediators (often solicitors) who do this work and your own solicitor wold have details.
> 
> I think whatever you do, you have drawn a line in the sand. If they do not back down, you probably won't like to stay working there. So not rocking the boat is probably not an option - the boat was rocked when they decided to amend your contract.


 
Mediatiors are generally former IBEC / ICTU employees on a jolly, they listen to both sides of the argument and generate a report. This report has no legal standing, but may br useful at a later stage.

Company suggested mediation , they of course pay.

Have a representative present, a friend or someone just to note down minutes.

Cannot see mediation working, but at least allows you to present your case in front of a third party.


----------



## Diziet (28 Apr 2008)

crumdub12 said:


> Mediatiors are generally former IBEC / ICTU employees on a jolly, they listen to both sides of the argument and generate a report. This report has no legal standing, but may br useful at a later stage.



Mediators do a lot more than that and to be honest the above description is a bit misleading. I have direct experience of mediation - the mediator brokered a legally binding agreement, signed by both parties. He was certainly not 'on a jolly'  and did a hell of a lot more than listen and write a report. The whole thing was very professional and the outcome was good.

Are you thinking of an independent HR person who provides an opinion, rather than a mediator perhaps? If you are, then I agree with you!


----------



## mumofthree (29 Apr 2008)

Just to be clear - I am not in a union.

(If I were, this whole issue would never be allowed to get this far).


----------



## shipibo (29 Apr 2008)

Diziet said:


> Mediators do a lot more than that and to be honest the above description is a bit misleading. I have direct experience of mediation - the mediator brokered a legally binding agreement, signed by both parties. He was certainly not 'on a jolly' and did a hell of a lot more than listen and write a report. The whole thing was very professional and the outcome was good.
> 
> Are you thinking of an independent HR person who provides an opinion, rather than a mediator perhaps? If you are, then I agree with you!


 

Diziet,

The experience I described above comes from a Labour court issue, where they recomend Union / Employer get a mediator involved, LC have a list of approved mediators, and Union / Company came to agreement on issue.

The recomendation made was not binding, and was eventually ignored.


----------



## shipibo (29 Apr 2008)

mumofthree said:


> Just to be clear - I am not in a union.
> 
> (If I were, this whole issue would never be allowed to get this far).


 
You would be surprised ..... , up to this point you are doing as good a job as anyone ...


----------



## Diziet (29 Apr 2008)

crumdub12 said:


> Diziet,
> 
> The experience I described above comes from a Labour court issue, where they recomend Union / Employer get a mediator involved, LC have a list of approved mediators, and Union / Company came to agreement on issue.
> 
> The recomendation made was not binding, and was eventually ignored.



I see - the Labour court decisions are not binding, so now that you mention Labour court, I understand the context. My experience of mediation was different, so it's good to have a sample of different outcomes.


----------



## Purple (30 Apr 2008)

crumdub12 said:


> You would be surprised ..... , up to this point you are doing as good a job as anyone ...


Agreed. In my (indirect) experience unions are not good in private sector settings or when the legalities of a situation are not clear-cut.


----------



## shipibo (30 Apr 2008)

With sites like this one, and industrial relations lawyers for bigger issues , unions have focussed more on collective bargaining in both Public / Private sector.Individual issues can be tricky , and would depend on quality of Union representative you have. 

I would always advise people to check out their rights, as leaving issues to third parties can lead to problems ..


----------



## Purple (30 Apr 2008)

crumdub12 said:


> With sites like this one, and industrial relations lawyers for bigger issues , unions have focussed more on collective bargaining in both Public / Private sector.Individual issues can be tricky , and would depend on quality of Union representative you have.



I agree. Most unions seem to be little more than political lobby groups.


----------



## shipibo (30 Apr 2008)

Agreed.Unions use their leverage with employers organisations (IBEC) and politicians to get best possible deal for their members.


----------



## Purple (30 Apr 2008)

crumdub12 said:


> Agreed.Unions use their leverage with employers organisations (IBEC) and politicians to get best possible deal for their members.



Interestingly IBEC is a trade union and, I think, is affiliated to the ICTU.


----------



## shipibo (1 May 2008)

IBEC represents employers in Ireland, suppose you could call them a Union ...


ICTU is 32 county Union organisation, 

ICTU and IBEC have working relationship, but no affiliation.


----------



## mumofthree (2 May 2008)

Quick update:

Had my meeting.

It did NOT go well.....

Will post more details when I get time.

They are insisting that my contract will not have Maternity Benefit.

I pushed my case as much as I could but they insisted they 'can't afford it'.

Not sure what to do now, am afraid to push it because of what the stress could do to baby, also because of the long term view that I don't want to alienate them (I know, I know.....).

Have to have a good think about the bigger picture.

I am raging that this can happen to someone in 2008.  

Will post more later, as much as I can within the boundaries of keeping my anonymity a little bit at least.

Thanks for everyone's support in the lead up to this, it helped me a lot to at least state my case clearly.


----------



## aircobra19 (2 May 2008)

Are you the only person who's contract has been changed?


----------



## Purple (2 May 2008)

crumdub12 said:


> IBEC represents employers in Ireland, suppose you could call them a Union...
> 
> 
> ICTU is 32 county Union organisation,
> ...


 IBEC is registered as a trade union in order to have a license to negotiate on behalf of its members (see [broken link removed] for details).  Its status as a union is not my opinion; it is a fact. What I am not sure of is if, as a union, it is affiliated to the ICTU.


----------



## Diziet (2 May 2008)

mumofthree said:


> Quick update:
> 
> They are insisting that my contract will not have Maternity Benefit.
> 
> I pushed my case as much as I could but they insisted they 'can't afford it'.



But they paid it before, correct? So how come they can't afford it now?

I do not remember if you have taken legal advice or not, but maybe this is a good time to do so. You may decide to drop it at this stage, but you don't know what the future holds. Just in case there are further problems down the line, it is worth keeping very clear detailed records of meetings etc and taking that legal advice now. 


best of luck,
Diziet


----------



## mumofthree (2 May 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> Are you the only person who's contract has been changed?


 
In theory all new (future) employees are getting a new contract.

One person who joined in the last six months supposedly got the new contract.

In theory I am the only existing employee whose contract has changed, they are using the 'opportunity' whereby I am changing to part-time hours, to re-issue and change my contract in this regard.

I have no way of knowing anyone else's contractual agreement or Ts and Cs.


----------



## mumofthree (2 May 2008)

Diziet said:


> But they paid it before, correct?


 
No, they didn't. I just missed out on qualifying so I didn't get it, which is as I would expect.  In fact, I don't think they ever paid anyone MB so far, and have obviously turned against the idea now that the penny has dropped that women have babies ;-)



> I do not remember if you have taken legal advice or not, but maybe this is a good time to do so. You may decide to drop it at this stage, but you don't know what the future holds. Just in case there are further problems down the line, it is worth keeping very clear detailed records of meetings etc and taking that legal advice now.


 

I have not taken legal advice but I take your point and I will certainly consider it. And yes, I am logging the evidence.

One thing I have already done is asked them to summarise the meeting and email it to me. On past form, that could take quite some time........


----------



## Purple (2 May 2008)

I hope it works out for you mumofthree, just keep as level-headed as you are now and I'm sure that you will get through it one way or another.


----------



## shipibo (3 May 2008)

Out of interest, who was the mediator, solicitor, HR , out of work actor  ???

I would summarise and send minutes of meeting to them, if they feel they are incorrect, you will get prompt reply.


You have a strong case, so it depends on where you want to take it.


----------



## Marge (6 May 2008)

Dear Mumof3, I am sorry to hear about your situation.  I had an employer issue in the past (non-maternity) and going to get legal advise from a solicitor early saved a lot of confusion for me in terms of whether I had a case etc. This helped me remain strong as I cannot emphasize how stressful such disagreements can be.  I followed the process of meeting with the employer, then going on to mediation. In my case, the mediation was a waste of time - the employer paid for the service and the recommendations were crazy plus it delayed the process for weeks.  However, next day the employer started ridiculous disciplinary procedure against me, so be warned that going down this route can be very unpleasant, very stressful and may make things so uncomfortable that that you wish to leave or they may try to fire you (as in my case) so think carefully before you make your decision. In my case, I resigned before they could fire me and my solicitor took over and started direct contact with them lodging the case with the tribunal. Thankfully, they settled. I don't regret my decision but cannot over emphasize that you need think carefully about what you do and get solid legal advise before you make any decision as it could be unpleasant and stressful journey - not good for you or the baby!


----------



## Don_08 (6 May 2008)

Mumofthree

Terrible situation.  On your meeting re the minutes - if they are normally slow about these things - write up your own minutes and circulate to the involved parties for comments etc to keep the ball rolling.  Will give them an idea that you are serious and may go to outside advice.

D


----------



## mumofthree (7 May 2008)

crumdub12 said:


> Out of interest, who was the mediator, solicitor, HR , out of work actor  ???



No mediator was involved.


----------



## mumofthree (7 May 2008)

To those who suggest writing up my own minutes and sending them in - good idea.  Will wait a while longer but definitely will do that if need be, and will challenge / correct their version if need be.

Marge, thanks for the advice / story.  That is exactly why I hesitate to pursue this all the way.  Its not that I am afraid of them, its just that I have to see the big picture.  

Its only money, ok I would prefer it in my pocket than theirs but you can't win them all.  

I am taking the long term view now and one way or the other I hope I will come out of this better than the measly few thousand that is at stake.

I will continue to fight the good fight as far as I can, and for a reasonable timeframe, without getting stressed or alienating them too much.  

In any case, I hope I have quite a few years of my career left.  In the interests of anonymity I can't say too much about my future plans, but I am determined that in due course, this episode will spur me on more than hold me back.


----------



## Purple (7 May 2008)

I don't want to keep saying the same thing but the way you are dealing with this is just brilliant.


----------



## mumofthree (13 Nov 2008)

Final update:  they won.

I had to back down and sign the contract.  They would not take no for an answer.  

I took legal advice from our family solicitor.  He basically said, don't go there, only the legal profession will win.  If I wanted to prove contructive dismissal, the onus is on the employee.  If I refused to sign the contract, and somehow forced them to pay me what I am due, then I would win the battle but lose the war (terrible way to think of your job, isn't it!).  He said they would prob be waiting in the long grass for any excuse to fire me in the future.

So I signed it (there have been other issues regarding holiday accrual and so on that I have basically had to compromise (ie capitulate) hugely on as well).

It's a bit depressing to think that they have so much power over me, depsite all the employment law to the contrary.

However, pregnancy has gone well so far thank God, despite the incredible stress I have felt due to this issue.

Just wanted to thank everyone for their input, it really helped me get my head clear.  Hope these posts help someone else, even if it is not good news really.

Thanks again.


----------

