# Redundancy when pregnant



## Guest (25 Aug 2005)

*Redundancy in pregnancy*

I was made redundant in work when I was 20 weeks pregnant.
He said there was a down turn in business.  A month after he employed someome else.  I got a sollictor to go to the employments tribunal.

My ex employer is of course disputing this and says he made me redundant because I was not to his satisfaction.  I only worked with him for about 10 months and he never mentioned to me that he was not happy.

My question is does any one have experience with the employments tribunal (what can I expect) and can my ex employer change his mind after why he got rid of me!!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Aug 2005)

*Re: Redundancy in pregnancy*

Hi Guest


You should register as you will get a much better response to this interesting question in the careers forum.

Employers are advised to be very careful about how they deal with pregnant employees. In general, you can get rid of anyone in the first 12 months, but not for being pregnant. It doesn't really matter what your employer said to you, he will have to show that he got rid of you for other reasons. From teh facts outlined, you should win your case. 

Brendan


----------



## Seagull (25 Aug 2005)

*Re: Redundancy in pregnancy*

If he made you redundant, he's not allowed to hire someone in your place. If he wasn't happy with your performance, he would have had to fire you in order to hire someone else.


----------



## ClubMan (25 Aug 2005)

*Re: Redundancy in pregnancy*

Yes - my understanding was that in a redundancy situation it is the job and not the employee per se that becomes redundant. So using redundancy to get rid of an employee and hire a replacement is questionable and possibly in breach of the law. I guess this is why the employer is ostensibly changing the story after the fact? Of course I guess that your solicitor has advised you more comprehensively on matters? Has s/he given you any idea of how strong your case looks to be and what you might expect in terms of settlement? I presume that you are not looking for reinstatement?

I see that your main query is in relation to prior experience with tribunals in this sort of situation so hopefully somebody else can help you out on this...


----------



## ClubMan (25 Aug 2005)

In case of any confusion I have merged the original thread and the new post above from _Sunshine_ who has since registered.


----------



## jhegarty (25 Aug 2005)

if everything is as above, the guy is the sort of scum bag that employment tribunals are setup to catch


----------



## Sunshine (25 Aug 2005)

Thanks for your responses.
This happened in December just before Christmas and my baby was born in April I have been out of work now for 9 months and it is becoming very hard to find another part time job as they always ask why I left me last employer.


----------



## CMCR (25 Aug 2005)

Hi Sunshine, 

On the basis of your postings above, I don't think the pregnancy is the issue here at all and it's negligable as to whether or not your pregnancy was actually the cause of your redundancy.  In fact, it may be purely coincidental. Situations where redundancy may occur are limited and you need to be careful here.  

While your employer may have cited a 'down-turn in business' for your redundancy, this is acceptable.  It is also feasible that the person they hired after you left your job had qualifications you didn't possess.  It's also feasible that the employer intended your would to be done differently in a way you were unqualified or trained to do.  It's also feasible that your employer intended your replacement to do your work and other work aswell.  Again - these are all grounds acceptable for redundancy purposes. 

I think his assertion you were 'not to his satisfaction' rests with on premise that you were unable or unqualified to do the work you were employed for.  The Courts take a dim view of employers who infringe the rights of pregnant employees under Maternity Protection legislation and general employment legislation.  However, I suggest it may be difficult to prove he sacked you due to your pregnancy - *unless you have concrete evidence* of this. Evidence might include for example, might include: 

1.  being treated less favourably following notification to employer of pregnancy, 
2.  other women in the employment being let go or made redundant when they announced a pregnancy
3.  reluctance of employer to allow you time off work as set out under Maternity Protection legislation (i.e., time off for hospital visits, etc.)

Staff in the Employment Appeals Tribunal (I presume this is what you are referring to when you mention 'employment tribunal') will be happy to go through the actual process of appearing on the day.  You might also consider reading through this Guide to the Employment Appeals Tribunal here: http://www.entemp.ie/publications/employment/2002/employmentappealstribunalguide.pdf

Best of luck


----------



## hotlips (25 Aug 2005)

I would have thought the onus is more on the employer to prove that Sunshine was not dismissed because of pregnancy. 

[broken link removed]

(Don't know anything about these solicitors but spotted a Presumption uf Unfair Dismissal Section)

What happened to you sounds terrible. Good luck and hope things work out. I'm sure you don't need this stress in addition to looking after a small baby and looking for a new job.


----------



## Seagull (25 Aug 2005)

How do the responsibilitie of the person he hired compare to those you had? Does the new hire have significantly different skills? If it's someone with similar skills in a similar role, I would imagine he has no case. If his argument is that he was unhappy with your work, he should have told you this.


----------



## Sunshine (25 Aug 2005)

I was working as office manager and worked around 25 hours per week. There were never any issues regarding my work.

The only thing was that I was sick 2 weeks before he made me redundant. And to my knowledge I have all the skills that I need to do my job.

Before I got pregnant he offered me to do the book keeping and gladly accepted but returning after my illness he had hired another bookkeeper to look after the accounts. (this person has left)

The letter I got from clearly stated that he made me redundant due to lack of business and not because I did not posses certain skills. After I decided to go to court he changed his tune and told in his defence the real reason why he let me go was because of that there were issues with my work from day one!!

I have to say that I am very angry that it is possible to sack a woman when they are pregnant as they make you unemployable for a long time.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Aug 2005)

Hi Sunshine 

There are a few issues here.

The Unfair Dismissals legislation only comes into force when you have been employed for 12 months. So an employer can fire you without giving you any reason within the first 12 months. 

He hasn't really made you redundant as such. He has just fired you. 

After 12 months, he would have had to justify the dismissal as the legislation assumes that the dismissal is unfair unless the employer can prove that it is fair. 

Let's assume that this guy had problems with your work. He might have found it easier to tell you that you were redundant rather than incompetent. It is not easy to tell someone that they are incompetent. 

The worst scenario for an employer is to be thinking of firing someone for incompetence and then they announce that they are pregnant. It does happen and it puts the employer in a very difficult position. 

We don't know his side of the story. If you can show that you were dismissed because you were pregnant, you will get compensation.

Brendan


----------



## Sunshine (25 Aug 2005)

A woman is protected under the maternity act from the day she starts work.This means that the 12 month period does not count when an employee is pregnant.

I told my employer I was pregnant at 10 weeks so he knew for 10 weeks before he made me redundant.
I have a letter stating he made me redundant because he did not have work for me anymore. Then I found out he hired someone else in my place
If he was unhappy with my work he could have let me go within in the six month probation period which he did not. 
The problems started when I became ill during my pregnancy!!

I am disgusted because this happens to a lot of woman they become pregnant and then they are either made redundant in the time they are pregnant or when they come back from maternity leave.


----------



## ClubMan (25 Aug 2005)

Sunshine said:
			
		

> A woman is protected under the maternity act from the day she starts work.This means that the 12 month period does not count when an employee is pregnant.


Are you sure about that? I thought that this only guaranteed that a pregnant woman could not be made redundant or otherwise let go while on protected leave such as maternity leave? I did not think that it otherwise provided a blanket protection from redundancy etc. for women in general or pregnant women in particular. Of course pregnancy cannot be used as grounds for redundancy/sacking but that's a separate matter (unless it can be proved here). What has your solicitor said about the merits of your case, your chances of winning and the likely outcome?


----------



## Sunshine (25 Aug 2005)

She said I have a very strong case as I have it on paper he made me redundant due to lack of business but then changed his mind when I went to employments tribunal because you can not make a pregnant woman redundant and then hire someone else to replace her.

An employer can not hire anyone else for six months after he made that postion redundant (he hired someone after a month)


----------



## ClubMan (25 Aug 2005)

Sunshine said:
			
		

> you can not make a pregnant woman redundant and then hire someone else to replace her.


I didn't think that this was necessarily the case except (a) where the pregnancy is cited as a reason for firing the employee or (b) the woman is on maternity leave (one type of protected leave). See [broken link removed] for more info.


----------



## Sunshine (26 Aug 2005)

OK but which employer will give the reason of  pregnancy to make someone redundant?  No employer will do this and to say down turn in business and then hiring someone else sounds to me like doing this but trying to get away with it!!!


----------



## ClubMan (26 Aug 2005)

Yes - I'm not commenting on the merits or otherwise of your particular case but just trying to clarify what protection the relevant legislation gives women in general, pregnant women and pregnant women on maternity leave. Far be it from me to second guess your solicitor but if s/he advised you as below then I would be a bit nervous because I suspect that this is incorrect:


> A woman is protected under the maternity act from the day she starts work.This means that the 12 month period does not count when an employee is pregnant.


----------



## armitage (26 Aug 2005)

clubman I'm not sure about 





> thought that this only guaranteed that a pregnant woman could not be made redundant


 in call case
think it only protects the women if she is singled out
there was a case with a large multinational in bray a few years ago where a whole section of the company was made redundant. One of the team memebrs was on maternity leave and took a court case to stop her redunancy.
she lost as as the court ruled that her employer was not acting against her due to her condition


----------



## LizaM (23 Oct 2005)

Hi sunshine etc, just wondering how you to on with your situation. Im aware that all this seemed to have happened back in august and was wondering how things went for you.Im kind of in the same situation myself and am really pissed off about it. Ive been working for my boss for over a year and a half now as the chairman of the  companys PA and Secretary to the Chief Executive.Sounds great probably,  but theres only 4 of us that work there!

I went on maternity leave on 1st July gone for the statutory 18 weeks and was due to go back to work on 8th December.

I got a phone call from my  boss on Thursday askiing me to meet him for lunch in one of dublins most expensive hotels no doubt and he proceeded to give me the bad news that i no longer had a job to return to. I was gobsmacked, actually sat in the hotel crying my eyes out.

Hes cute though, hes saying "my position has been made redudnat" which first of all is craP. They are using the excuse that my other boss wants to have someone to be able to travel to france for meetings etc to translate. The sickening thing also is my boss let it slip out that they have already met someone, interviewed her and i would say have offered her the job, BEFORE i was even told!!

When i said a few times, that i didnt think they could fire me whilst on maternity leave, he kept on stressing the fact that i WASNT being fired, that "My POSITION was being made redudant". 

I said to him so was he not going to have a secretary at all then, like who would answer phones and do his typing etc, he said well me and the accountant would answer them between them! This is crap, hes obviously got it checked out with a solictor and this is what hes been told to say and do. 

He has offered to pay me though until end of feb, were you told by your solicitor that if they pay well we havent a leg to stand on? i got some great advice from clulbman and rainyday here on this forum too, but would love to hear how you got on sunshine?

post back soon,


----------



## Sunshine (8 Nov 2005)

Dear Liza,

My case will be heard before Christmas. I went today to the sollicitor to review my case. She told me I have a very strong case against my former employer.
My former employer wanted to get rid of me for redundancy he claimed he did also not need a secretary anymore as the there was a downturn in business.
He then after a month hired someone else in my place and he now claims he got rid of me for summary dismissal.
I can give you this advise check if the company has hired someone else in the next few months. He cannot hire anybody else for a period of six months.
And also go see a sollicitor and have a consultation this normally doesnt cost much and they can tell you if you have a case.

How long have you been working with your former employer?


----------



## LizaM (8 Nov 2005)

Sunshine, thanks so much for replying back to me. Just over a year and a half  Im with them, I know its not very long.

You mentioned about them not being able to hire anyone for 6 months after yes, but if they change around the job title, like add on a couple of extra responsibilities, are they okay to do that then do you know?


----------



## onekeano (9 Nov 2005)

Think you will find that the LRC / EAT guys will smell a rat if the substance of the role remains the same and will find accordingly.

Roy


----------

