Like many women, Ms Edwards thought she was protected from losing her job because she was on maternity leave. But in truth, it is only illegal if the reason for the dismissal is because of the pregnancy or maternity leave and therefore constitutes discrimination.
Seems reasonable. You’re allowed to fire a dusky bloke – or a gammon – but not because they’re a dusky bloke or a gammon.
And?
So Ms Edwards worked for the World Wildlife Fund, a charitable organization. While it may be apolitical for tax purposes, it’s not difficult to see which way it leans. When times are tough, charitable contributions dry up. No money, no job.
You comfort me Steve. I’d like to have a stake driven through the heart of so many other charities.
When times are tough, charitable contributions dry up
We’ve had three years of excess deaths, while property prices hit all-time highs. Big-name charities received millions in legacies. They ought to be swimming in cash.
I was vicariously involved in something of this sort. Woman, v good at her job, made redundant with bare min statutory pay over bloke doing the same job (sat next to each other and worked on the same stuff for the same client base in a distinct part of the company.) So basically it was an argument over who was the better worker. She had 2 kids already, 3rd on the way so fought it. Won, or looked to have won, because overtaken by events as the company went into administration before verdict was finalised. Result: everyone out of a job.
So…she made an offer for the client list to the administrators. They accepted. Formed her own company, doing the same stuff for the same clients. Still going to this day. So yes i think she was the most competent one, but still don’t matter if the company is in dire straits.
I would imagine the problem is it’s very hard to prove why a person who isn’t in work was selected just because they aren’t in work, any performance or disciplinary measures are not going to be very current.