Strange maternity leave stipulations

Clauric

Hi all. Just thought I'd post this here for comment. A friend was recently at their group induction for a large MNC in south county Dublin. One of things that was covered, but not applicable to them, was the maternity leave policy and cover. They asked me about it, but I have never heard of a similar situation, and I'm not sure what the law would be.

Basically, the company will pay the employee's salary, less statutory maternity benefit for the period of maternity leave. However, if the employee decides not to return after the end of the 26 weeks (and I would assume the 16 weeks unpaid), the company will recoup the salary it paid to the employee while they were out on leave. Further, if they leave within 6 months of returning to work after maternity leave, the money must be repaid, even if they give the notice required in the contract. If they are terminated or made redundant, then it does not apply.

I'm just wondering if anybody has ever heard of this type of policy? My initial gut feeling is that it would be a breach of one of the "Big 9", but I'd be interested in others opinions or comments.

KCC

Clauric wrote: »

Hi all. Just thought I'd post this here for comment. A friend was recently at their group induction for a large MNC in south county Dublin. One of things that was covered, but not applicable to them, was the maternity leave policy and cover. They asked me about it, but I have never heard of a similar situation, and I'm not sure what the law would be.

Basically, the company will pay the employee's salary, less statutory maternity benefit for the period of maternity leave. However, if the employee decides not to return after the end of the 26 weeks (and I would assume the 16 weeks unpaid), the company will recoup the salary it paid to the employee while they were out on leave. Further, if they leave within 6 months of returning to work after maternity leave, the money must be repaid, even if they give the notice required in the contract. If they are terminated or made redundant, then it does not apply.

I'm just wondering if anybody has ever heard of this type of policy? My initial gut feeling is that it would be a breach of one of the "Big 9", but I'd be interested in others opinions or comments.

According to www.citizensinformation.ie, the Maternity Protection Acts 1994 and 2004 provide statutory minimum entitlements in relation to maternity at work including maternity leave. Since 1 March 2007, you are entitled to 26 weeks’ maternity leave together with 16 weeks additional unpaid maternity leave. Your entitlement to pay and superannuation during maternity leave depends on the terms of your contract of employment. Employers are not obliged to pay women on maternity leave.

As such, it all sounds ok to me, with the exception of the 26 week limit. It should be a 42 week limit, including the 16 weeks unpaid. However, you did mention that you are only assuming about this.

davo10

That is a sweet deal, you have no fiscal loss during maternity leave, that's a gift as employers are not in any way required to pay you. I think it is very fair that you have to repay it if you do not return to work. That is one contract term you would be bonkers to challenge.

Stheno

I've come across several variations of that usually in MNCs

MouseTail

Standard enough in large companies with generous benefits packages. Can't see how it is in breach of equality legislation. I'm sure they have similar stipulations that apply to all staff, male and female, eg if we pay for your Masters or CPD and you leave straight afterwards, you owe us buddy.

ABajaninCork

Entirely normal for Multi-nationals.

Larry Wildman

Standard practice at large Irish companies and multinationals.

Makes sense too - Fair in my view.

Clauric

Interesting to read the posts. I had my friend send over a copy of their contract, as well as the HR policy booklet (more like a long text book). A read through the relevant sections lead to me questions.

Two things that strike me:
1) the company pays sick pay ( full pay less illness benefit) for up to 26 weeks. If you leave the company in that time, or within 6 months afterwards, you are not expected to repay the company the extra they paid you.

2) the maternity benefit policy only affects women. They do allow for parental leave ( available to either parent), on full pay, without having the same stipulation of having to repay the salary.

To me it seems like the company is deliberately targeting women due to the mismatch in policies.

monflat

Clauric wrote: »

Interesting to read the posts. I had my friend send over a copy of their contract, as well as the HR policy booklet (more like a long text book). A read through the relevant sections lead to me questions.

Two things that strike me:
1) the company pays sick pay ( full pay less illness benefit) for up to 26 weeks. If you leave the company in that time, or within 6 months afterwards, you are not expected to repay the company the extra they paid you.

2) the maternity benefit policy only affects women. They do allow for parental leave ( available to either parent), on full pay, without having the same stipulation of having to repay the salary.

To me it seems like the company is deliberately targeting women due to the mismatch in policies.

God I would not think so.
Companies do not have to top up a woman's wages when she out on leave as she will be entitled to maternity benefit when she is out from dept social welfare depending on the amount of tax she has paid over the past 2 yrs.


Are you sure parental leave is on full pay?

We have to apply for it and it's at the discretion of management if we can take it in hours per week or a block of weeks

It's all unpaid thou

markpb

Clauric wrote: »

To me it seems like the company is deliberately targeting women due to the mismatch in policies.

It seems to me that the company is being especially generous to women who (in the main) choose to be pregnant. They continue paying their full salary which a) they're not obliged to and b) most companies won't do. Asking them to come back to work and stay for a while doesn't seem especially onerous to me and definitely doesn't seem to be discriminatory.

People don't choose to be sick, especially not for 26 weeks. I suspect the reason they don't have a clawback is because a) you're likely to have spent a lot of money on treatment and b) if you don't come back, it's because you can't. And mostly because no-one wants the bad PR associated with the headline "Multi-billion dollar company sues cancer patient for €13,000"

Eoin

Paid parental leave is impressive - I don't think I've heard a company doing that, and I've been fortunate to work for companies who offer relatively good benefits.

This really sounds like an odd thing to take issue over. They could be "fair" across the board and not offer anything over the legal requirements.

DundalkDuffman

davo10 wrote: »

That is a sweet deal, you have no fiscal loss during maternity leave,

And accruing annual leave based on time you haven't actually worked!

Nody

DundalkDuffman wrote: »

And accruing annual leave based on time you haven't actually worked!

If I don't remember incorrectly that's the law though; even if someone gets nothing by the company they would still accrue their annual leave and have to be paid for any bank holidays.

deedless

I wonder if the OP is conflating statutory mat pay and top ups.

I can see how a requirement to repay statutory mat pay (about 180 a week) would be illegal but as top ups are entirely discretionary (and not paid by the majority of employers), they can put any restrictions they want on it. It's similar to how some companies offer a pay rise or bonus on qualification that can be clawed back.

TLDR - if they choose to give non required payment they can put any fences they want around it.

MouseTail

I really can't see how parental leave is paid. Are you sure OP parental rather than paternity leave is paid?

Mrs OBumble

In the past I've had a gig with a MNC who offered paid maternity leave with similar conditions.

Of course agency workers did not get it. So at one time I had two colleagues, one looking forward to getting 26 weeks paid leave, the other worried that because her fixed term contract was due to end a few weeks after her maternity leave started, she might not even get maternity benefit for the whole 26 weeks. Caused a few interesting workplace dynamics, to say the least.

GerardKeating

Clauric wrote: »

Hi all. Just thought I'd post this here for comment. A friend was recently at their group induction for a large MNC in south county Dublin. One of things that was covered, but not applicable to them, was the maternity leave policy and cover. They asked me about it, but I have never heard of a similar situation, and I'm not sure what the law would be.

Basically, the company will pay the employee's salary, less statutory maternity benefit for the period of maternity leave. However, if the employee decides not to return after the end of the 26 weeks (and I would assume the 16 weeks unpaid), the company will recoup the salary it paid to the employee while they were out on leave. Further, if they leave within 6 months of returning to work after maternity leave, the money must be repaid, even if they give the notice required in the contract. If they are terminated or made redundant, then it does not apply.

I'm just wondering if anybody has ever heard of this type of policy? My initial gut feeling is that it would be a breach of one of the "Big 9", but I'd be interested in others opinions or comments.

For any situation where the employer pays a benefit to the employee which either exceeds statutory requirements, or is not an entitlement, they can impose any "reasonable" condition.

They are paying an extra benefit to encourage the employee to stay with them, in this case it is extra maternity benefit, in other cases it might be paid paternal or study leave. Or even paying for courses/training. And it is not unreasonable for them to put a condition (i.e. stay with the company for a minimum period) as part of the employees acceptance of the benefit.

If the employee does not like the condition, they do not have to apply/accept the non-statutory benefit.

Clauric

MouseTail wrote: »

I really can't see how parental leave is paid. Are you sure OP parental rather than paternity leave is paid?

I went back to re-read the policy. Parental leave is only allowed on a 1 day per week basis, for X number of weeks. The employees are paid their full salary for that duration.

Stheno

Clauric wrote: »

I went back to re-read the policy. Parental leave is only allowed on a 1 day per week basis, for X number of weeks. The employees are paid their full salary for that duration.

That's also normal and legal.

If you think about the maternity clause the company have the money to pay women who stay with them to do so.

What they do not want is women who go on maternity leave, come back and announce they are heading off again in a few months, or leaving the company benefitting from what is a company benefit.

They are essentially investing in the employee and expecting a return.

Perfectly legal and having worked in places where maternity was paid with no stipulations, it was massively abused.

Eoin

Not sure about that - I think you're entitled to take it in a block.

Stheno

Eoin wrote: »

Not sure about that - I think you're entitled to take it in a block.

Nope it can be in a block or taken over a period, known as broken leave.

Most people I know who use it, reduce their working week accordingly, so the broken leave model seems the model de jour ime

Eoin

Stheno wrote: »

Nope it can be in a block or taken over a period, known as broken leave.

Most people I know who use it, reduce their working week accordingly, so the broken leave model seems the model de jour ime

Yep, but I take that to mean that the employer might allow it to be broken; but there is a right to the block of time off.

The leave may be taken as a continuous block of 14 weeks,
or, if the employer agrees, broken up over a period of time.

Stheno

Eoin wrote: »

Yep, but I take that to mean that the employer might allow it to be broken; but there is a right to the block of time off.

Ah sorry personal experience versus the regulations.

If you read the link I gave, it does say it's up to the employee

CIARAN_BOYLE

Eoin wrote: »

Not sure about that - I think you're entitled to take it in a block.

True but the employer is entitles not to pay you if you take it in block. They are only offering to pay in this case if you take it broken time.

Eoin

That makes sense. Sounds like a pretty good employer!