Archive for the ‘Maternity’ Category
By Olivia - Monday, June 14th, 2010
An Employment Tribunal has found that a female officer was discriminated against by the RAF and have awarded her more than £16,000. The officer in question was posted in the Falkland Islands when she informed the RAF of her pregnancy. Her request to stay in her desk job was denied and she was ordered to return to the UK. She was therefore forced to take leave to stay with her husband (also in the RAF) in the Falklands and by doing so missed out on a performance review which in turn delayed promotion prospects.
This was judged by the Tribunal as amounting to harassment on the grounds that ‘creating an intimidating, degrading, hostile or offensive environment for her’. Remember there is no requirement that this is intentional - it is the view of the recipient that is important and not the perpetrator.
The MoD had been advised to carry out risk asessments for each pregnant woman and to establish a monitoring process in respect of any removal of a pregnant woman from her post. This case will certainly make them think carefully about the posting (or change in posting) of pregnant women.
Posted in Maternity | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Olivia - Thursday, February 25th, 2010
A European Parliamentary Committee has passed draft legislation to extend maternity leave to 20 weeks on full pay (currently in the UK women are given a year off with the first 6 weeks on 90% pay followed by 33 weeks on statutory maternity pay of £123 a week). The new proposals would effectively treble maternity pay in the UK.
If this eventually becomes law then this could be a huge financial burden for businesses. Whilst I am all for generous benefits there has to be a balance struck between rights and entitlements of the individual and the impact on businesses. I remain unconvinced this proposal has struck that balance.
Posted in Maternity | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Olivia - Wednesday, January 6th, 2010
It has been determined in the EAT case of O’Neill v Buckinghamshire County Council that the obligation to carry out a risk asessment in respect of pregnant workers is not a general one with the result that failure to carry out such a risk asessment is not discrimination per se. This follows the 2007 Court of Appeal decision in Madarassy v Nomura International Plc.
Whilst it is prudent for employers to carry out risk asessment for all pregnant workers it is clear from the language of the Pregnant Workers Directive and UK Regulations that the obligation is only triggered by specific circumstances (a) the employee has notified the employer that she is pregnant in writing (b) the work is a kind that involves a risk of harm or danger to the mother or child and (c) the risk arises from specific processes or working conditions …
The EAT decision also confirmed (again) that pregnancy is not an exceptional state of affairs and there is no regime of positive discrimination for pregnant workers.
Posted in Maternity | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Sarah - Monday, November 30th, 2009
According to a survey by the National Childbirth Trust (NCT) 40% of women say that they find returning to work after maternity leave difficult or very difficult. 33% said that their relationship with their boss had deteriorated since they became pregnant and that their promotion prospects had been reduced since having a baby. The survey polled over 1500 mothers who had just returned to work after maternity leave. Around 1 in 7 women return to work in a less senior position than when they left and 88% want to work flexibly when they return to work.
Despite the wave of equality legislation over recent years the NCT claims women are still not getting the suppport they need when they return to work. In my view this is not reflected everywhere and the Government should re-look at the Keeping in Touch (KIT) days. 10 is nowhere near enough KIT days especially if women wish to take off 9-12 months from a senior position. This can be exhausted in a matter of weeks given the rule that any work on any day counts as a whole day! Surely a pro-rata’d amount for the absence would be better rather than a one size fits all policy!
Posted in Family Friendly, Maternity | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Liam - Monday, October 26th, 2009
This article presents an interesting debate about the length of maternity leave and the rights and wrongs of the abundance of family friendly rights that women, and more recently men too, enjoy.
Are these rights too much or do they help keep a happy and well motivated work force?
Posted in Maternity | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Liam - Thursday, August 13th, 2009
I advised an employer recently on an employee who was trying to maximise maternity pay by taking a job, having a baby and then coming back to work for the shortest period possible before going off to have a second baby and then (according to the grapevine) intending to resign after maternity pay ran out for the second child. Unfortunately for her, she mistakenly thought she only had to give 28 days’ notice to return from maternity leave early. The current position is that a woman has to give 8 weeks’ notice to return early. This scuppered her plan and resulted in her receiving very little maternity pay for the second child as she did not return to work for long enough to maximise her maternity pay.
Maternity Pay is calculated based on a woman’s earnings in the 8 weeks before the start of the 14th week before the baby is due.
Where a woman is having a second baby within a few months of returning from her 12 months’ maternity leave, if she wants to maximise her maternity pay she needs to work and earn as much as possible for the 15th - 22nd week before the baby is due in order to maximise maternity pay. If she does not earn full pay for that period, for example because she is still on the unpaid portion of additional maternity leave from the first child, her maternity pay may be 90% of nothing.
She may still qualify for Statutory Maternity Allowance, which has different qualifying criteria to maternity pay but which is potentially a lower rate of payment.
Financially, it may pay to have a bit of time between babies or end the first maternity leave period early (which requires a bit of forward planning to allow for the 8 weeks’ notice to return early) in order to maximise earnings in the relevant period and therefore maximise maternity pay.
Posted in Maternity | 1 comment »
Similar Posts:
By Sarah - Monday, August 10th, 2009
Following on from my blog on the new EC proposals for maternity leave and my blog on maternity leave in France, the position is quite different in Germany.
In Germany the compulsory leave for most women is 14 weeks! 6 weeks before and eight weeks after birth, paid at 100% of their last months average salary. Parental leave is available for both parents for the first 14 months of a child’s life during which time parents receive 67% pay. Parents can claim the allowance for a maximum of 12 months or for a total of 14 months if both parents take it. Parents can also take up a further period of unpaid leave until the child is 3.
Again despite the equality of the leave on offer, statistics show that women take 12 months and men take 2 months. There is also very limited take up of the extended unpaid leave period which would be the same with our unpaid parental leave provisions. This could reflect the traditional image of the roles but shows that economics is not behind the reason why mean don’t us the paid leave period in the same way as women.
Posted in Maternity | 1 comment »
Similar Posts:
By Sarah - Friday, August 7th, 2009
Continuing on a theme from my last blog on maternity rights and given I am now officially on maternity leave, I was reading an article about maternity rights in Europe in line with the proposals from the EHRC. I was surprised to read about the different schemes in France and Germany in particular. I thought I would therefore bring you the second in a three series set of blogs about maternity rights in Europe.
A woman in France is entitled to 16 weeks maternity leave paid at her maximum salary over the past three months to a maximum of 76.54 Euros per day all paid by social security. Parental leave is an entitlement after you have one years service for the first three years after birth. Payment of a family allowance is made for the first six months with the first child at 140-790 euros per month or for the whole leave period with subsequent children. Men get two weeks paternity leave on full pay again paid through social security.
Many French employers have collective bragaining agreements which mean that the statutory sum is enhanced by employers in the case of maternity leave to full salary after a qualifying service and in the case of parental leave so this is paid at 50-70% of full salary!
Interestingly statistics show 1 in 3 mothers take parental leave compared to 1 in 100 fathers despite the equality of the right. Also women who are high earners tend to snub parental leave. In a time when the rest of Europe is reviewing the maternity rights and looking in most cases for an increase, the French President wants to reduce the parental leave period and encourage more part-time workers. This is a politically sensitive subject in France and I can imagine the suggestion of such a scheme here would also be an emotive issue!
Posted in Maternity | 1 comment »
Similar Posts:
By Sarah - Wednesday, August 5th, 2009
Today is my last day (officially) before the start of my maternity leave so I have been trawling for a story on this related issue. Don’t think you get rid of me that easily as you will still see the odd post from me on here and I’ll be back before you know it.
Being self-employed and pregnant is very different in my view from being an employee. If you are self employed (or have not been employed long enough) you get a statutory maternity allowance from the Government of £123.06 (the current rate) from the Government.
If you were an employee you get the first 6 weeks at that rate or 90% of your salary if this is higher then the balance of your 39 weeks at that rate. You also have many employment rights relating to your pregnancy. The EU announced recently that it would like to amend the Pregnant Workers Directive to offer enhanced benefits for new mothers including:
- A legal entitlement to their full salary for 18 weeks
- The right to return to work after 18 weeks to the same or equivalent job
- The right to work flexibly
- Increase in compulsory leave from 2 weeks to 6 weeks
- A duty to provide written reasons for dismissal within six months of the end of her maternity leave
Before employers panic it is worth remembering that the UK already provides more than the minimum under the Directive in any event so some of the measures already exist. The right to 100% pay has caused some concern but we already have 6 weeks at 90% and then further payments which don’t exist everywhere in Europe.
The positive news for employers is that the employment minister said that it was looking to veto the current proposal. In the current economic climate it is my view (and I can say this being pregnant and being a woman) that introducing such changes would actually mean women (particularly those of a child bearing age) may be worse off as they find themselves at the wrong end of a redundancy exercise.
Posted in Maternity | 3 comments »
Similar Posts:
By Olivia - Wednesday, July 29th, 2009
The EAT case of Queen Victoria Seamen’s Rest Ltd v Mrs D Ward highlights the ongoing difficulty Tribunals encounter in determining causation in discrimination cases. As Lord Nicholls observed back in 2001, causation is ‘a slippery word’. This case also serves as a useful reminder of the general position.
QVSR employed Mrs Ward as an Operations Manager. She became pregnant and submitted a grievance in relation to her treatment. Considering this was not investigated properly she resigned, alleging ‘intolerable behaviour’ from her employers. She complained to the Tribunal of automatic unfair dismissal by reason of her pregnancy and less favourable treatement on the ground of her pregnancy.
QVSR appealed on the basis that the tribunal had applied the wrong test when considering whether there was discrimination on the ground of pregnancy. It claimed the tribunal had applied the test that ‘but for’ the failures identified, the subsequent acts of discrimination would not have occured. They claimed the tribunal should have asked ‘the reason why’ the treatment afforded to Mrs Ward had occured and then it would have found the reason was not her pregnancy.
The EAT have confirmed that in deciding whether events or actions are on the ‘grounds of pregnancy’ (as required by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) a Tribunal should simply ask itself ‘why’ did they occur? They found in this case that in reality this is what the Tribunal had done. The confusion arose because of the Tribunals use of the words ‘but for’ in their judgment. The EAT also reiterated that no comparator is required in pregnancy cases.
So, really a reminder to us of the correct test to be used in pregnancy related discrimination cases. And a reminder to Tribunals of being careful as to the words they use in judgments as otherwise, like in this case, a claim can end up in the EAT when really there should have been no debate in law entitling QVSR to appeal.
Posted in Maternity, Sex/Race Discrimination, Unfair Dismissal | No comments »
Similar Posts:
