Is this Discrimination or bad management ?

[Mojomummy]

I am in the process of putting together a formal grievance which dates back to Jan 2003.

I have met today with the grievance officer & whilst he is happy to review 2 of my grievances he seems to think one of the is normal procedure.

The situation was, I was asked taken on by a manager with the sole intention of him taking me with him, when he moved to his new role. Everything was signed off & I joined his department in Jan 2003. Within a matter of weeks, I told him I was pregnant. I have a vague recollection of him telling e about his wife & what work she did after she had each of her children. I said I was most likely to want to return 4 days a week.
In February 2003, this manager moved on & I surprise surprise, was not taken with him.
I was inherited by the new manager of the department, without a role & remained like this until June 2003 when I went on maternity leave.

I think this is sex descrimination - he no longer wanted me in this role because I was pregnant.

[flowerybeanbag]

Hi mojo

Did your contract include confirmation that you would be moving departments with this manager and what reason was given to you when you didn't? Did you do anything about it at the time?

Difficult to say whether it was discrimination without more information but regardless of that, if you are going to claim discrimination you need to bring the claim within 3 months of the thing you are complaining about taking place, so you are way over the time limit. The exception is if the act in question is part of a continued series of acts of discrimination over a period of time.

[Mojomummy]

Hi FBB,

no, it was just an internal move. I didn't do anything at the time, because I didn't know a) I could do anything & b) what to do.

I believe it's the start of a series of events - the events are being covered by a greivance. I was promised better oppportunites/career progression, but instead ended up with no job with a manager who didn't give me any work, who 'managed' me until July 2007.

Does that help ? (thanks for advice

[flowerybeanbag]

If it's part of a series of events presumably it's all in the same grievance? In which case they should consider it all together and may uphold all, none or some of it - may decide that some of it is normal procedure and some of it isn't, or whatever. But that will be for whoever is hearing the grievance to decide. Essentially you put whatever you think in it, then see what they decide.

Whether it's normal or not will depend on what reason they have for it happening other than discrimination. If you were all working on the assumption that you were moving departments, there must have been a point at which that changed, someone must have told you. What reason were you given?

[Mojomummy]

I don't actually remember being told. I was a bit embarrased about being pregant with the new job that I was excited about.

As I said, we had a conversation where I talked about returning. He mentioned that you don't know how you feel when you've had a baby & that's where I said I would return 4 days a week.

No role came up for me for the periond Jan - June 03 - when I went on maternity.

[flowerybeanbag]

If you don't remember what you were given as a reason and didn't make any issue of it at the time, you will probably struggle to prove that particular act was discrimination. But if it's in your grievance as an example of a series of events that have taken place over a long period of time, by all means leave it in anyway. As I say, the worst they could do is say that particular event was not discrimination but including it doesn't mean they will disregard other events as well.