Pregnancy and a loss of wages

Decorus

Hi guys,
I have a quick question. My wife became pregnant and her employer due to that “Company needs “ announced that they want a “full body person, not a half body” and that she is not allowed to work Sundays anymore. She has been working every Sunday for the last 5 years and got paid a double pay. Strangely during normal week and normal hourly pay she is doing basically the same duties and no issues in relation to safety arises at all.
I was wondering if this is legal to do to cut off Sundays which reflected on her wages and whether she has any possibilities to argue about this?
P.S. She was doing 40 working hours before pregnancy and after (it not an issue of overtimes).
Many thanks

Esoteric_

Without knowing full details, if her hours and therefore pay have been cut for no other reason than being pregnant (ie, she can still do ALL her usual duties), then she could have serious grounds for complaint.

I'd advise contacting NERA and discussing it with them before doing anything, or her Union Rep.

January

Contact NERA and they will be able to tell you if what they are doing is illegal. Does it say in her contract that she works Sundays?

Decorus

LyndaMcL wrote: »

Without knowing full details, if her hours and therefore pay have been cut for no other reason than being pregnant (ie, she can still do ALL her usual duties), then she could have serious grounds for complaint.

I'd advise contacting NERA and discussing it with them before doing anything, or her Union Rep.

She wasnt offered any alternative thats for sure. There are possibilities to do paper work in the office or some other lighter work during Sundays, however this was not even considered.

Decorus

January wrote: »

Contact NERA and they will be able to tell you if what they are doing is illegal. Does it say in her contract that she works Sundays?

Sent email to NERA just now. As for the contract it doesnt' say that you have or not have to work on Sundays, however she was working for the last 5 years non stop.

smcgiff

Her hours haven't been cut from what you say. I'd be surprised if working the premium rate hours on a Sunday would be her entitlement.

IF she were being discriminated against for being pregnant then that would, of course, be serious.

Are there any extra duties to be performed on a Sunday not required on a normal weekday?

Esoteric_

smcgiff wrote: »

Her hours haven't been cut from what you say. I'd be surprised if working the premium rate hours on a Sunday would be her entitlement.

IF she were being discriminated against for being pregnant then that would, of course, be serious.

Are there any extra duties to be performed on a Sunday not required on a normal weekday?

Working premium time on a Sunday might not be her entitlement, but if she's done it every week for the past 5 years, as the OP stated, surely that'd be an implied contract by now?

Decorus

smcgiff wrote: »

Her hours haven't been cut from what you say. I'd be surprised if working the premium rate hours on a Sunday would be her entitlement.

IF she were being discriminated against for being pregnant then that would, of course, be serious.

Are there any extra duties to be performed on a Sunday not required on a normal weekday?

Hours werent cut, wages were.
As for extra duties Company trying to say there are some heavy work, however in fact there is loads of work she could be doing on Sunday without a problem (partially what she is usually doing during normal week plus paper work for other collegues).
For us it looks that the only reason is pregnancy and to offer any other solutions the Company didnt even bother.

Decorus

LyndaMcL wrote: »

Working premium time on a Sunday might not be her entitlement, but if she's done it every week for the past 5 years, as the OP stated, surely that'd be an implied contract by now?

I think so too.

smcgiff

Decorus wrote: »

Hours werent cut, wages were.
As for extra duties Company trying to say there are some heavy work, however in fact there is loads of work she could be doing on Sunday without a problem (partially what he is usually doing during normal week plus paper work for other collegues).
For us it looks that the only reason is pregnancy and to offer any other solutions the Company didnt even bother.

My two cents worth.

The Sunday payment rules are there to ensure those that are required to work on Sunday are compensated (to my mind in an increasingly more atheist/non christian country this may be outdated) . That the company your wife works for pay double time is considerably over what is required to meet NERA requirements. Therefore it's a good company.

It looks like your wife's employers are being good employers to not require your wife to work when extra heavy lifting may be required.

I doubt your employer would be required to allow her to do work (paper work) on a Sunday if it's not normally performed on a Sunday just to suit your wife.

'For us it looks that the only reason is pregnancy'

Not sure this makes sense. If anything the company is trying to ensure a safe working environment.

Esoteric_

Ah, so they've replaced her Sunday hours with a different shift, a shift which doesn't include the premium pay?

That could be tricky. Sounds as though they could say they're ensuring a safe working environment by changing her shifts. That said, the way the management worded it seems to be pretty bad, from what the OP says.

Decorus

LyndaMcL wrote: »

Ah, so they've replaced her Sunday hours with a different shift, a shift which doesn't include the premium pay?

That could be tricky. Sounds as though they could say they're ensuring a safe working environment by changing her shifts. That said, the way the management worded it seems to be pretty bad, from what the OP says.

Thats exactly what happend.

smcgiff

Decorus wrote: »

Thats exactly what happend.

Why do you think the company have changed her shift from Sunday?

Decorus

smcgiff wrote: »

My two cents worth.

The Sunday payment rules are there to ensure those that are required to work on Sunday are compensated (to my mind in an increasingly more atheist/non christian country this may be outdated) . That the company your wife works for pay double time is considerably over what is required to meet NERA requirements. Therefore it's a good company.

It looks like your wife's employers are being good employers to not require your wife to work when extra heavy lifting may be required.

I doubt your employer would be required to allow her to do work (paper work) on a Sunday if it's not normally performed on a Sunday just to suit your wife.

'For us it looks that the only reason is pregnancy'

Not sure this makes sense. If anything the company is trying to ensure a safe working environment.

I leave your position about high or not premium paid or moral aspects of Sunday work with no comment as I have a complete different position about this and it is not related to the thread.

As for "It looks like your wife's employers are being good employers to not require your wife to work when extra heavy lifting may be required.", she is not crazy herself to be looking for a work to do which could be harmful for her while she is pregnat. She does most of the duties during her normal week without lifting anything heavy which could be performed on Sundays also plus some paper work, however this wasnt offered by the Company.

Decorus

smcgiff wrote: »

Why do you think the company have changed her shift from Sunday?

Because other workers within the same department Sunday premium is slightly different.
I presume the real reason could be is save on wages...

smcgiff

Decorus wrote: »

she is not crazy herself to be looking for a work to do which could be harmful for her while she is pregnat.

She may not be crazy, but she may not be qualified to make that call either.

Decorus wrote: »

She does most of the duties during her normal week without lifting anything heavy which could be performed on Sundays also plus some paper work, however this wasnt offered by the Company.

Most may not be enough.

In case you missed my question above - why do you think the company has moved your wife's shift from Sunday?

smcgiff

Decorus wrote: »

Because other workers within the same department Sunday premium is slightly different.
I presume the real reason could be is save on wages...

Then you may have a case.

Decorus

smcgiff wrote: »

She may not be crazy, but she may not be qualified to make that call either.




Most may not be enough.

In case you missed my question above - why do you think the company has move your wife's shift from Sunday?

As far as I know according to the Law when a worker announces pregnancy employers have to do all their best to consider an alternative work or something like this. In her situation she was doing exactly the same work during a week and slightly different on Sundays. When she asked to have an alternative work plus what she is usually doing she was told that they dont need a half body person and no alternative was considered or provided (notwithstanding the fact that it would be possible if Company wanted to).

wmpdd3

Ignoring the fact she is pregnant for a minute, its is often trotted out in work that once you have worked the same shift over 13 consecutive weeks, you have an implied contract to receive this shift. It is referred to as a union agreement (Mandate).

I have never seen referred to as a law etc but I have heard it mentioned in many companies. In this case, if they were to move you of a Sunday they would have to get you to agree to it.

When a person announces they are pregnant, a report can be done in the interest of health and safety and if its finding found Sundays to be an issue, then work could be moved to during the week only.

But if there is a saving to be made by taking the person off Sundays

or

Another pregnant person worked on Sundays through their pregnancy.

If this was the case, she may have to bring this to the attention of her employer.

And yes, I would find their choice of words highly insulting.

smcgiff

Decorus wrote: »

As far as I know according to the Law when a worker announces pregnancy employers have to do all their best to consider an alternative work or something like this. In her situation she was doing exactly the same work during a week and slightly different on Sundays. When she asked to have an alternative work plus what she is usually doing she was told that they dont need a half body person and no alternative was considered or provided (notwithstanding the fact that it would be possible if Company wanted to).

Well, you're the one with the law degree. However, (we seem to be going around in circles here) they've accommodated her by giving her a shift that doesn't require her to perform the duties that would be required on a Sunday shift.

What it boils down to is whether she is entitled to work at a premium rate (not because of working Sundays, for which it was designed) but because that is what she has been doing for 5 years. I would guess no, but it'd only be a guess.

Decorus wrote: »

When she asked to have an alternative work plus what she is usually doing she was told that they dont need a half body person and no alternative was considered or provided (notwithstanding the fact that it would be possible if Company wanted to).

The bit in bold is disgraceful - pure and simple. The alternative was provided (working on a day that didn't require duties unsuitable to a pregnant woman), so we are back to the same question, is she entitled to premium pay simply because that's what she is used to over 5 years.

Decorus

smcgiff wrote: »

Well, you're the one with the law degree. However, (we seem to be going around in circles here) they've accommodated her by giving her a shift that doesn't require her to perform the duties that would be required on a Sunday shift.

What it boils down to is whether she is entitled to work at a premium rate (not because of working Sundays, for which it was designed) but because that is what she has been doing for 5 years. I would guess no, but it'd only be a guess.




The bit in bold is disgraceful - pure and simple. The alternative was provided (working on a day that didn't require duties unsuitable to a pregnant woman), so we are back to the same question, is she entitled to premium pay simply because that's what she is used to over 5 years.

If "I am the one with a law degree" then it looks that I speak now to someone from the Company and we are on the opposite sides of the bar.)))

How did you come to the conclusion that she was provided an alternative shift/work!? She was simply given an extra day during a week, which resulted in a loss of wages, can this be regarded as an alternative?
If to bring in the law again employer did nothing to provide her with a choice or made any efforts to keep her to work on Sundays. It was never even discussed or considered.
As I mentioned above, and I know this Company myself, if the employer really wanted there would be no problem to accomodate with a lighter work and to let her stick to the routine she was in for the last 5 years.

Decorus

"What it boils down to is whether she is entitled to work at a premium rate (not because of working Sundays, for which it was designed) but because that is what she has been doing for 5 years. I would guess no, but it'd only be a guess."

And surely it is not a hope in hell any employer would pay premium rate for a day of week where the premium was not supposed to be paid in replacement of Sunday, bank holidays etc.

Esoteric_

Decorus wrote: »

If "I am the one with a law degree" then it looks that I speak now to someone from the Company and we are on the opposite sides of the bar.)))

How did you come to the conclusion that she was provided an alternative shift/work!? She was simply given an extra day during a week, which resulted in a loss of wages, can this be regarded as an alternative?
If to bring in the law again employer did nothing to provide her with a choise or made any efforts to keep her to work on Sundays. It was never even discussed or considered.
As I mentioned above, and I know this Company myself, if the employer really wanted there would be no problem to accomodate with a lighter work and to let her stick to the routine she was in for the last 5 years.

It could be regarded as an alternative, because the shift has been replaced, just not with one of the same monetary value. It's really something you'd need to speak to a union rep or NERA about.

smcgiff

Decorus wrote: »

How did you come to the conclusion that she was provided an alternative shift/work!?

Er, you said it.

Decorus wrote: »

P.S. She was doing 40 working hours before pregnancy and after

It's hard enough to try an understand a situation when only hearing one side of any dispute, without confusing matters.

BTW, if you're only intersted in hearing from people to support your claim you should have said so

smcgiff

Decorus wrote: »

there would be no problem to accomodate with a lighter work and to let her stick to the routine she was in for the last 5 years.

Also, these two positions in bold are contradictory.

Decorus

smcgiff wrote: »

Er, you said it.



It's hard enough to try an understand a situation when only hearing one side of any dispute, without confusing matters.

BTW, if you're only intersted in hearing from people to support your claim you should have said so

I appreciate all the opinions and efforts people making here trying to help, support, unsupport etc.
I've gathered a lot of useful information here and some of it will use trying to find out whether her rights were infringed or the Company was acting in a "goodwill and being helpful" (which I really doubt knowing people there )

Decorus

smcgiff wrote: »

Also, these two positions in bold are contradictory.

Why? Employers duty is to adjust the working conditions and/or hours of work; or provide suitable alternative work for pregnat employees.
By the "lighter work" I mean ANY other work within the Company not related to the lifting.
If there is such work to do, but the Company did not provide/consider it, is it a right way to do? The easiest way, which also cheapest, for the Company is to cut off Sundays and let to work any other day, i.e break the contract and the routine she was following for the last 5 years.
I dont personally see any contradictions in my statement above.

seamus

Decorus wrote: »

As for extra duties Company trying to say there are some heavy work, however in fact there is loads of work she could be doing on Sunday without a problem (partially what he is usually doing during normal week plus paper work for other collegues).

That's not really the question that was asked though.

There's clearly some work that's performed on a Sunday which is not performed on other days, for which they bring in staff and pay them a premium rate.

If your wife is now unable to performs these duties due to pregnancy (or the company deem it inadvisable), then there's no reason for them to bring her in on a Sunday as the rest of her duties can be done during the other days of the week.

You're saying that if she was brought in on a Sunday, they could find stuff for her to do. Why would they bring her in on a Sunday if they didn't need to?

While I understand your annoyance that from your POV your wife's income has now reduced by 17%, unless her contact of employment guarantees a certain amount of Sunday shifts, I don't see any real argument you have against. It's certainly not discriminatory as the decision appears to have been made in the interest of her welfare, even though it's detrimental to her income.

Strawberry Fields

Is there any chance that by allowing your wife to work Sunday they could incur liability under the safety, health and welfare and work act?

Decorus

seamus wrote: »

That's not really the question that was asked though.

There's clearly some work that's performed on a Sunday which is not performed on other days, for which they bring in staff and pay them a premium rate.

If your wife is now unable to performs these duties due to pregnancy (or the company deem it inadvisable), then there's no reason for them to bring her in on a Sunday as the rest of her duties can be done during the other days of the week.

You're saying that if she was brought in on a Sunday, they could find stuff for her to do. Why would they bring her in on a Sunday if they didn't need to?

While I understand your annoyance that from your POV your wife's income has now reduced by 17%, unless her contact of employment guarantees a certain amount of Sunday shifts, I don't see any real argument you have against. It's certainly not discriminatory as the decision appears to have been made in the interest of her welfare, even though it's detrimental to her income.

Not to go into too much details the problem is that her duties on a Sundays consists entirely the same as the rest of her working week, however the Company has just one other person in her department present and they dont want a situation to arise where she will help the other person if the other person is too busy on that day. And it is not a high possibility that this would happen, as she for the last 8 month was ever asked for assistance from the other collegue and if she was asked she could do a paper work,reports and computer work for the collegue instead of lifting. Paper work and lifting are both as time consuming as each other.

Decorus

Strawberry Fields wrote: »

Is there any chance that by allowing your wife to work Sunday they could incur liability under the safety, health and welfare and work act?

No, not at all.

monkeypants

Is it possible that because there are less staff working on a Sunday, they don't want her left on her own for Medical reason? For instance, is she takes ill or falls that there's no one around to call an ambulance and look after her. This would always have been a risk, but is now being reevaluated due to the pregnancy.

seamus

monkeypants wrote: »

Is it possible that because there are less staff working on a Sunday, they don't want her left on her own for Medical reason? For instance, is she takes ill or falls that there's no one around to call an ambulance and look after her. This would always have been a risk, but is now being reevaluated due to the pregnancy.

That's what I was thinking when it was mentioned that there were only two people on Sundays.

Not so much what would happen if she fell ill, but what would happen if the other staff member didn't show up or had to leave early? She may then be left in a position where she is doing all the work that day, which is fine if you're not pregnant.

CIARAN_BOYLE

seamus wrote: »

That's what I was thinking when it was mentioned that there were only two people on Sundays.

Not so much what would happen if she fell ill, but what would happen if the other staff member didn't show up or had to leave early? She may then be left in a position where she is doing all the work that day, which is fine if you're not pregnant.

I don't have a clue about the OP's wives situation beyond what was mentioned.

There are two people in the department doing a range of work from heavy lifting to office work.

Is it fair to make the other person do all the heavy lifting? Are they able for it, perhaps the other person has a contract guaranteeing them Sunday work so the OPs wife is the only person they can change.

Second it is likely that office work and heavy lifting are done in different areas of the building so if there are only 2 staff in there on a Sunday should the OPs pregnant wife be left alone.

There could be other issues too. Its best that the OP and his wife sit down with the union representatives and maybe talk to management. I can understand why they wouldn't be happy with the loss of shift premium but I think that it is possible that the company may be able to justify.

The union would have a much better idea than we would here.

Decorus

monkeypants wrote: »

Is it possible that because there are less staff working on a Sunday, they don't want her left on her own for Medical reason? For instance, is she takes ill or falls that there's no one around to call an ambulance and look after her. This would always have been a risk, but is now being reevaluated due to the pregnancy.

No, this is not in her case. The Company is huge and even on Sunday they have at least 50 people in.

Decorus

seamus wrote: »

That's what I was thinking when it was mentioned that there were only two people on Sundays.

Not so much what would happen if she fell ill, but what would happen if the other staff member didn't show up or had to leave early? She may then be left in a position where she is doing all the work that day, which is fine if you're not pregnant.

I meant to say one more person in her department, but under the same roof around 50 workers each Sunday. Its a factory and has few different departments however workers are always intermingling with each other.

Decorus

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I don't have a clue about the OP's wives situation beyond what was mentioned.

There are two people in the department doing a range of work from heavy lifting to office work.

Is it fair to make the other person do all the heavy lifting? Are they able for it, perhaps the other person has a contract guaranteeing them Sunday work so the OPs wife is the only person they can change.

Second it is likely that office work and heavy lifting are done in different areas of the building so if there are only 2 staff in there on a Sunday should the OPs pregnant wife be left alone.

There could be other issues too. Its best that the OP and his wife sit down with the union representatives and maybe talk to management. I can understand why they wouldn't be happy with the loss of shift premium but I think that it is possible that the company may be able to justify.

The union would have a much better idea than we would here.

The union is barred and not recognized by this Company.
Dont get me wrong by saying "heavy lifting". This could be heavy for a pregnant person however not a bother for normal person. I dont want to name the Company, but the type of work my wife's department does is nothing to do with extremely heavy lifting all day. Its is partially office work plus some checking.
As I said in my previous messages her duties before pregnancy were not related to ANY lifting for the last 8 months, the argument Company has now is that if the other collegue stuck on Sunday (who at some stage during a day is doing some lifting) she would have to give him a hand, however this never happend once for the last 8 months.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Decorus wrote: »

The union is barred and not recognized by this Company.
Dont get me wrong by saying "heavy lifting". This could be heavy for a pregnant person however not a bother for normal person. I dont want to name the Company, but the type of work my wife's department does is nothing to do with extremely heavy lifting all day. Its is partially office work plus some checking.
As I said in my previous messages her duties before pregnancy were not related to ANY lifting for the last 8 months, the argument Company has now is that if the other collegue stuck on Sunday (who at some stage during a day is doing some lifting) she would have to give him a hand, however this never happend once for the last 8 months.

If there is no union recognition then I guess NERA is your only option.

Best of luck and let us know what the end result is

Decorus

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

If there is no union recognition then I guess NERA is your only option.

Best of luck and let us know what the end result is

Thank you! Ive emailed to NERA last night and still waiting for a response.
I really hope that the problem will be resolved without unnecessary arguments and preassure. Will let yous know.

spygirl

If the employer changed her shifts due to health and safety concerns relating to her duties and condition, is she not still entitled to be paid her Sunday premium even though they have changed her days under health and safety guidelines?

Presumably she did not ask for this change and if the employer has initiated these new rostering arrangements to comply with the legislation then the employee should not lose any remunerations just solely based on the fact of her pregnancy. Would that then not fall under indirect discrimination as the monetary loses were not taken into consideration when the company made the decision?:)