Unfair pay for maternity leave???

anonymous83

Hi I hope this post will make sense. I work for a company that up until a year ago paid full wages during the 26 weeks maternity leave and the state maternity benefit was made payable to my employer. Our old sickness and leave policy stated this and there were no problem with this.

Due to cutbacks last year we were asked to approve a new policy which stated that the company would pay 50% of our wages during those 26 weeks. There was no mention of our state maternity benefit being made payable to the company. Staff agreed to this as we believed we would get 50% wages plus the state maternity benefit. However, when I approached my company (I'm due my baby in October) they said I had to hand over my state maternity benefit to them.
My question is, can an employer do this if it is not stated in our sickness and leave policy??

helimachoptor

Iirc you don't get your state benefit and 100% pay, you get whatever the benefit is and then a % of your pay which when added to the state benefit is 100.


Let's say you earn 1000 a week, maternity is 200 a week, in reality your company would pay 800.

In your specific case 500 a week, state contributes 200, company 300

anonymous83

helimachoptor wrote: »

Iirc you don't get your state benefit and 100% pay, you get whatever the benefit is and then a % of your pay which when added to the state benefit is 100.


Let's say you earn 1000 a week, maternity is 200 a week, in reality your company would pay 800.

In your specific case 500 a week, state contributes 200, company 300

I understand that. What I'm asking is can they pay half my wages and take the state benefit off me (meaning they would only be paying me €30 a week out of their own pocket) when it clearly does not mention taking the state payment off us in our policy handbook. Our previous policy handbook before cutbacks said they would pay us our full wages and we would hand our state payment to them.

helimachoptor

They don't take it off you as it will be paid to you directly, they will just adjust what they pay you to get you to 50% of you pay

helimachoptor

For the full and 50% they would be doing the same thing as in my example

MouseTail

I would think it is legit. All companies who pay top ups do so on top of statutory, so your salary will be topped up to 50%.

vandriver

You collectively approved a policy change last year.Do you have in writing what you approved?

anonymous83

vandriver wrote: »

You collectively approved a policy change last year.Do you have in writing what you approved?

We didn't sign anything. The new policy that was introduced in June 2013 states that ‘Statutory maternity leave consists of 26 consecutive weeks leave where employees will receive statutory maternity/ social welfare benefit from the Department of Social and Family Affairs’.
It further states that ‘during the 26 weeks of maternity leave, the company will pay the employee 50% of pay
That is what we verbally agreed to

vandriver

It sounds like the company had the intention of doing exactly what they are trying to implement with you ,but the policy was not at all clear when written down.
Do you have a union you could take this up with ?
However,you say the company under their purported new policy will only have to pay you 30 Euros out of their own pockets,so you are on about €520 a week.Under the old system,they would be paying €290 (520-230),and under the new system as you thought you were agreeing to they would be paying €260.Does it seem likely that the company's intention through all the consultation etc on cost cutting was to only save €30 a week per employee out on maternity?

anonymous83

vandriver wrote: »

It sounds like the company had the intention of doing exactly what they are trying to implement with you ,but the policy was not at all clear when written down.
Do you have a union you could take this up with ?
However,you say the company under their purported new policy will only have to pay you 30 Euros out of their own pockets,so you are on about €520 a week.Under the old system,they would be paying €290 (520-230),and under the new system as you thought you were agreeing to they would be paying €260.Does it seem likely that the company's intention through all the consultation etc on cost cutting was to only save €30 a week per employee out on maternity?

They would be saving 50% of my wages. I have to fill out a maternity benefit form and have my state payment paid directly to them, so instead of costing them €260, it would only cost them €30. Previous to the cut backs it would have cost them €290 (€520-€230) per week

vandriver

anonymous83 wrote: »

They would be saving 50% of my wages. I have to fill out a maternity benefit form and have my state payment paid directly to them, so instead of costing them €260, it would only cost them €30. Previous to the cut backs it would have cost them €290 (€520-€230) per week

You seem to be missing the point.Your company under the old system was already saving 45% of the cost of someone on your salary level.Does it seem likely that the intention of the cost cutting exercise was to save an additional 5%?

anonymous83

vandriver wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point.Your company under the old system was already saving 45% of the cost of someone on your salary level.Does it seem likely that the intention of the cost cutting exercise was to save an additional 5%?

But instead of costing €290 a week (which it would have a year ago), it now only costs them €30. Half my wages are €260 but they are getting €230 off the state towards this

vandriver

Yes the company have implemented a cost cutting measure that has quite successfully cut costs. You don't need to repeat the figures to me,as I understand them.

blindsider

anonymous83 wrote: »

Hi I hope this post will make sense. I work for a company that up until a year ago paid full wages during the 26 weeks maternity leave and the state maternity benefit was made payable to my employer. Our old sickness and leave policy stated this and there were no problem with this.

Due to cutbacks last year we were asked to approve a new policy which stated that the company would pay 50% of our wages during those 26 weeks. There was no mention of our state maternity benefit being made payable to the company. Staff agreed to this as we believed we would get 50% wages plus the state maternity benefit. However, when I approached my company (I'm due my baby in October) they said I had to hand over my state maternity benefit to them.
My question is, can an employer do this if it is not stated in our sickness and leave policy??

Who believed this, and did you seek clarification or make an assumption?

(I'm not being smart here, just asking the 'difficult' question.)

Did the co. approach you collectively? Who represented you? Why did you believe that you'd get 50% + the state mat benefit? What led you to believe this?

Does it state in the policy that you have to hand over the state mat benefit? If it doesn't, then why does the company think it's okay?

This point might be worth querying with a solr. - I have doubts about the legality of anyone compelling you to hand over a state benefit, to which you are legally entitled.

1- Check with whoever (internally) negotiated on your behalf - you need confirmation.

2 - Consider approaching a solr for advice - from what you've said, it might be worth it. You'll get peace of mind if nothing else.

anonymous83

blindsider wrote: »

Who believed this, and did you seek clarification or make an assumption?

(I'm not being smart here, just asking the 'difficult' question.)

Did the co. approach you collectively? Who represented you? Why did you believe that you'd get 50% + the state mat benefit? What led you to believe this?

Does it state in the policy that you have to hand over the state mat benefit? If it doesn't, then why does the company think it's okay?

This point might be worth querying with a solr. - I have doubts about the legality of anyone compelling you to hand over a state benefit, to which you are legally entitled.

1- Check with whoever (internally) negotiated on your behalf - you need confirmation.

2 - Consider approaching a solr for advice - from what you've said, it might be worth it. You'll get peace of mind if nothing else.

I suppose we made an assumption as the old policy states that we had to hand over our state benefit and the new one does not mention this. The CEO met with all staff as a group.

Mrs OBumble

blindsider wrote: »

This point might be worth querying with a solr. - I have doubts about the legality of anyone compelling you to hand over a state benefit, to which you are legally entitled.

Could be a double-edged sword to go down that road though: I doubt the legality of being paid any wage while you're on Maternity Benefit.

therecklessone

anonymous83 wrote: »

But instead of costing €290 a week (which it would have a year ago), it now only costs them €30. Half my wages are €260 but they are getting €230 off the state towards this

Until one year ago the cost to your employer for you maternity leave was €290 (€520-230)

Now the cost is €30 (€260-230)

If your assumptions were correct the cost would have been €260 (plus you would have received €230 yourself from the DSP).

You can see how logically your assumption would be incorrect as it would yield minimum savings to the company?

As to legality, your employer is under no obligation to pay your salary while out on maternity benefit, so at best it would appear that they the wording of the new policy is ambiguous and they could be challenged on that basis.

If you want advice on this you should consider visiting your local Citizens Information office.

therecklessone

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Could be a double-edged sword to go down that road though: I doubt the legality of being paid any wage while you're on Maternity Benefit.

Where employers pay all or part of salary (which is in excess of standard maternity benefit rates) during maternity leave they can insist on payment of maternity benefit to them. That is perfectly legal (and the same applies if salary is paid during periods of sick leave)

blindsider

Good points from Mrs O (as always!) and Therecklessone. I didn't know about Mat Leave payments to a company - interesting.....

At best there seems to have been fairly serious mis-communication during the discussions - not confirming agreements in writing is especially poor form - both sides culpable here. Did no-one seek clarification by way of practical examples?

I think it's worth clarifying this issue in writing, so that both parties understand what they have agreed.

BTW OP - did your employee group agree to any other policy changes? If so, they would be worth checking out thoroughly!

Finally: without being trite, I refer you all to GB Shaw:

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place."

tinkerbell

anonymous83 wrote: »

Hi I hope this post will make sense. I work for a company that up until a year ago paid full wages during the 26 weeks maternity leave and the state maternity benefit was made payable to my employer. Our old sickness and leave policy stated this and there were no problem with this.

Due to cutbacks last year we were asked to approve a new policy which stated that the company would pay 50% of our wages during those 26 weeks.

This to me reads that the company pays half of your salary during the 26 weeks. The state benefit is irrelevant. Last year, the company would have paid your salary less the state benefit (as no company would pay 100% of salary while you were also getting the state benefit as then you would be earning more than 100% of salary while on maternity leave). Some companies pay you your salary less the state benefit and then you claim the state benefit separately. Other companies pay you your full salary and then you set up the state benefit to be paid directly to your employer. You end up with the same amount in both scenarios.

If the company did not clarify that the 50% equals 50% less state benefit, then you can argue that you should be paid 50% of salary and you keep the state benefit. Your company were being very stupid if they actually meant to pay you less as they didn't specifically state so at the time the agreement was made so I'd be getting them to pay the full 50%.

davo10

tinkerbell wrote: »

I'd be getting them to pay the full 50%.

How? Employers are not required to pay maternity pay, none whatsoever. The only point OP may argue is breach of contract but in the past she got 100% with benefit signed over, now she is getting 50% with benefit signed over. Both can argue their positions but the employer can point to legislation which expressly states that they are not required to pay employees while they are off on maternity leave.

blindsider

davo10 wrote: »

How? Employers are not required to pay maternity pay, none whatsoever. The only point OP may argue is breach of contract but in the past she got 100% with benefit signed over, now she is getting 50% with benefit signed over. Both can argue their positions but the employer can point to legislation which expressly states that they are not required to pay employees while they are off on maternity leave.

but the employer already agreed to pay something - that's not the issue. Both sides have an opinion on what should be paid. Something should be paid - that's already agreed - it's how much is the issue.

There's nothing in writing - so it's opinion - and we all have those....

...or as solicitor will delight in telling you, Quot homines tot sententiae

tinkerbell

davo10 wrote: »

How? Employers are not required to pay maternity pay, none whatsoever. The only point OP may argue is breach of contract but in the past she got 100% with benefit signed over, now she is getting 50% with benefit signed over. Both can argue their positions but the employer can point to legislation which expressly states that they are not required to pay employees while they are off on maternity leave.

If it states so in her contract, is what I mean. I know they aren't required to pay but if her contract says so, then I can't see how they can try to fob her off.

The point is that it was never clarified if it was "50% with benefit signed over" or "50%".

davo10

tinkerbell wrote: »

If it states so in her contract, is what I mean. I know they aren't required to pay but if her contract says so, then I can't see how they can try to fob her off.

The point is that it was never clarified if it was "50% with benefit signed over" or "50%".

When OP and coworkers agreed to 50%, was it specifically pointed out that they no longer had to sign over maternity benefit? I've looked back through the thread and cannot find this. If not then they agreed to a 50% reduction in wage, not to cease signing over the benefit. But who knows for sure? OP can put her case forward, worst case scenario is they say "no" and that'll pretty much be the end of it.