Another HR Conundrum

[derekthetree]

Do you not have to have worked for a company for a minimum period before being able to "claim" maternity leave??

M/Paternity is such a tricky business. A while back I had someone who was pregnant but about to start a new job. She was due to start that night, so myself and a colleague did a risk assessment.
As part of the risk assessment we decided that there was a potential risk of a fall on same level. We deemed this would harm the baby hence, advised not performing this task, hence got her to take the shift off while we resolved the hazards.
The next day I get reamed out by HR as you cannot differentiate between a pregnant woman and a man, despite the obvious difference in results from the hazard (bruise/broken arm vs no baby)

For evermore I will always get HR involved at the first point!

 

[Deleted member 65149]

NO - she did not have any legal need to disclose her pregnancy. It should have been spotted by the interviewer.

Eek, dodgy ground. Legally there's no need to declare pregnancy in work or at a job interview until the 15th week before the birth due date. Employers and interviewers are not allowed to ask about pregnancy or intentions to have children at any time. This would be classed as sex discrimination. It's in the interests of employees to tell their employer that they are pregnant earlier to claim health and safety protection or paid time off for antenatal care.

If a lady changes jobs during her pregnancy, she will not qualify for SMP because she must have worked for the same employer for 26 weeks by the end of the 15th week before the baby is due. However, she may qualify for Maternity Allowance.

My mate Dave knows this because he was a partner in his wife's hairdressing business and had lots of female employees. Two of those lovely ladies became pregnant whilst working for him and followed all the rules. Dave had to hold their posts open for them for 12 months, unrealistically unable to employ anyone sufficiently qualified to stand in for just a year. Within days of their 12 months maternity leave ending, both ladies notified Dave that they had decided not to return to work. Dave was left with very little hair to take advantage of his businesses services!

 

[bob6600]

Dave had to hold their posts open for them for 12 months, unrealistically unable to employ anyone sufficiently qualified to stand in for just a year. Within days of their 12 months maternity leave ending, both ladies notified Dave that they had decided not to return to work. Dave was left with very little hair to take advantage of his businesses services!

They should be made to pay it back if they leave within the next 3 months

 

[sc3992]

Just dismiss her and to hell with what she might do, she is clearly free loading........

 

[Dryce]

Employers and interviewers are not allowed to ask about pregnancy or intentions to have children at any time. This would be classed as sex discrimination.

In principle this is entirely correct. In practice I suspect the righteousness of the legislation backfires badly with small companies.

I recruited some female staff to technical roles in my department a few years back and I was basically thought of as an idiot by managers in other SME businesses.

My anecdotal observation since is that I see proportionately more women in critical professional and technical roles in large enterprises and public sector than I do in SMEs. Maybe I just don't see a sample that is actually representative - so I'm wrong - but if I was a legisl;ator I would be concerned.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

In principle this is entirely correct. In practice I suspect the righteousness of the legislation backfires badly with small companies. I recruited some female staff to technical roles in my department a few years back and I was basically thought of as an idiot by managers in other SME businesses. My anecdotal observation since is that I see proportionately more women in critical professional and technical roles in large enterprises and public sector than I do in SMEs. Maybe I just don't see a sample that is actually representative - so I'm wrong - but if I was a legisl;ator I would be concerned.

Absolutely. Surely it's inevitable that many SMEs will avoid employing women of an age who MAY take maternity leave. So women lose out on opportunities and SMEs lose out on some great staff because they don't feel able to take the associated financial and administrative risks. What's in place for protection may be causing problems for many of those it's meant to help.

 

[markjay]

Dave having an inquisitive mind and being firmly on the fence on most issue in life chose 'Investigate' and entrusted the task to a person with suitable qualifications, who called the HMRC SSP Helpline (yes, such a thing does exist) and they confirmed that the local Job Centre was wrong in saying the lady in question can not recover past SSP from when she first fell ill.

So Dave's mate will advise the employee to call the helpline herself and let them assist with a resolution.

Watch this space....

The plot thickens....

The lady said today that she was unable to claim through the benefits system and provided a copy of the rejection letter to this effect.

However the letter states that she is not entitled to benefits pay due to her particular personal circumstances (details provided in the letter), and not due to late submission of the application.

So it would seem that the lady is asking Dave to pay her SSP that she is not entitled to in lieu of benefits that she is not entitled to either....

Dave will call the HR consultant tomorrow to see if he can make heads or tails of this story.

Dave is still willing to make a goodwill payment to cover any pay she may have missed out on due to her expecting to be paid SSP by the employer.

 

[markjay]

Do you not have to have worked for a company for a minimum period before being able to "claim" maternity leave??

No.

...for SMP... she must have worked for the same employer for 26 weeks by the end of the 15th week before the baby is due....

Yes.

See:
https://www.gov.uk/employers-maternity-pay-leave/eligibility-and-proof-of-pregnancy

The employee's right to Maternity Leave starts as soon as the employment contract is formed, so in theory it starts as soon as she accepts the job offer.

For Statuary Maternity Pay, yes the 26 weeks rule applies.

So Dave will need to keep the position for her for one year after she gives birth. But he will not be obliged to make SMP payments.

 

[Gollom]

Is it me, or has the world gone mad?

 

[gr1nch]

The employee doesn't sound like she is very interested in maintaining good-will, so a guy down the pub said he wouldn't bust a gut doing so either. Either way, it could pay to consult a good employment lawyer or specialist forum.

 

[markjay]

The employee doesn't sound like she is very interested in maintaining good-will, so a guy down the pub said he wouldn't bust a gut doing so either. Either way, it could pay to consult a good employment lawyer or specialist forum.

To be the devil's advocate... this could be seen as the case of a low-paid worker who had the misfortune of becoming both pregnant and ill at the same time - so down on her luck - vs an established business run by successful businessmen (and women) who could afford to show some empathy to the employee's predicament?

Yes we can speculate that this was all part of a well-planned scheme on the employee's part, including the scheduled medical procedure and pregnancy that pre-dated the commencement of the employment contract.... but we will never know for certain, and so she does deserve the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

Your friend Dave sounds like a good employer, I hope his staff appreciate him. His proposed payoff (set against tax) sounds to be a lot cheaper than solicitor's advice and possible litigation if things go belly up. And the caring attitude can only be good for his reputation.