Not paying back mat leave

Googlewhacker

Uncertain wrote: »

Don't agree.

Maybe the contract when she saw it was unacceptable? After all the HR department had already tried to shaft her!

She hadn't objected to it so as per normal it could be argued and successfully IMO that she accepted the T&C's

mancitychick

agrinnall wrote: »

I take it that your original contract of employment specified a 2 month notice period? If so then I fear they are well within their rights to insist on holding you to that - from http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Moneyandworkentitlements/WorkAndFamilies/Pregnancyandmaternityrights/DG_065153 :

"If you decide not to return to work at all, you must give your employer notice in the normal way."

However, I'm not sure how they've arrived at a figure of £2077. They could require you to pay any extra cost over what they would have paid for you to do the job for another 3 months, for instance by employing an agency worker, but I think they would need to justify how that figure has been calculated.

Universities normally pay enhanced maternity pay, on the basis you return for at least 3 consecutive months at the end of your maternity leave. They reserve the right to request you pay back the difference between the SMP and enhanced amount. I presume this is what the above figure is based on.

embob74

t0rt0ise wrote: »

If she hadn't accepted the job and just got made redundant back in June, would she then have continued to be paid maternity pay or would it have finished earlier? If so then they have continued to pay her from June till now so she has still been overpaid. I'm genuinely asking because I don't know.

I know when I was made redundant while on maternity leave I was paid a lump sum for the remaining maternity pay I would have received if I had taken 9 months leave. I'm not sure if the employer was obliged to pay me that but it would be out of character if they had paid anything they didn't have to!
I only received standard SMP though so I don't know how it would work with enhanced maternity pay.

Uncertain

Googlewhacker wrote: »

She hadn't objected to it so as per normal it could be argued and successfully IMO that she accepted the T&C's

Had she started work then yes, that would normally indicate acceptance (unless they was an ongoing debate). However, as I read it in this case she had not started work so the only "acceptance" (if there was one at all) was verbal and subject to contract.

Given the history and the possible discrimination shown by HR which the OP had to fight I would rather doubt they would push it.

Googlewhacker

Uncertain wrote: »

Had she started work then yes, that would normally indicate acceptance (unless they was an ongoing debate). However, as I read it in this case she had not started work so the only "acceptance" (if there was one at all) was verbal and subject to contract.

Given the history and the possible discrimination shown by HR which the OP had to fight I would rather doubt they would push it.

Well considering women on maternity leave are still declared as working their contract then you should be able to argue the same point in that if she has not objected to the change in contract within a reasonable time then this is deemed as accepting the contract...

Vejovis

and people wonder why employers are reluctant to take on women of a certain age

t0rt0ise

embob74 wrote: »

I know when I was made redundant while on maternity leave I was paid a lump sum for the remaining maternity pay I would have received if I had taken 9 months leave. I'm not sure if the employer was obliged to pay me that but it would be out of character if they had paid anything they didn't have to!
I only received standard SMP though so I don't know how it would work with enhanced maternity pay.

Yes, that should happen with SMP but the work's enhanced pay might be different and it is the extra that the employer is asking to have back.

mountainofdebt

So basically you want your cake and to eat it too?

Not happy to apply for a position but you pull the 'I'm on maternity leave and so can't fire me but carry on and fire 3 other people all of whom would have liked the job' card, you now decide you don't want to return and because your role isn't the one you left,you feel that you don't have to repay the additional maternity pay which you were happy to accept.

Your attitude is the very reason why women (especially of child bearing age) get such a rough deal in the land of employment

Sometimes I'm ashamed to be a woman.

Emmzi

Uncertain wrote: »

Don't agree.

Maybe the contract when she saw it was unacceptable? After all the HR department had already tried to shaft her!

I'm not aware of a test case for this specific circumstance and as I suspect OP has already spent the cash, maybe we are about to find out what would happen!

getmore4less

Is the job a suitable alternative?

That seems to be the key here.

If it is, then acceptance by signing is not relevent and this is just not returning to work so resigning.

If not suitable then that will be the grounds for not accepting and a request for redundancy would be the way forward.