Entitlement to maternity leave

beckysbobbles1

Hi all


I start a new job on 1 June and I have a three month probation period. Hopefully some point next year we will try to have a baby but I'm just wondering if there is usually a set amount of time you need to be in a company before being entitled to maternity?


There was no information regarding maternity in my contract and I assume this information is available in the staff handbook. I did ask to see the staff handbook but I was informed this would be available to me after I've started working there.


I'm a bit of a planner so I just want to try and figure out the rough timeframe.


I intend to go back to work after maternity as I love my career and assume I'll be working there at least one year before going off on maternity leave.

Exodi

26 weeks to qualifying week for SMP, 15 weeks to birth = 41 weeks.

Which essentially means you can get pregnant almost as soon as you start and be eligible for maternity pay.

I must implore you not to do this though, I'm good friends with a small business owner and the scenario above has happened and crippled his business.

beckysbobbles1

Thanks for the reply.


No I definitely won't fall pregnant right away. If anything it'll be at least six months in.


I'm working for a huge international firm so I'm hoping the maternity will be much more than statutory but I guess I'll have to wait until I see the handbook.

ReadingTim

beckysbobbles1 wrote: »

I'm working for a huge international firm so I'm hoping the maternity will be much more than statutory but I guess I'll have to wait until I see the handbook.

It may well be, but there might be conditions - for example you only get SMP whilst actually off on mat leave, and get the rest in a lump sum only once you've returned to work and stayed there for a certain period of time afterwards.

However, all that will be set out in the staff handbook/HR policies once you start.

gettingtheresometime

ReadingTim wrote: »

It may well be, but there might be conditions - for example you only get SMP whilst actually off on mat leave, and get the rest in a lump sum only once you've returned to work and stayed there for a certain period of time afterwards.

However, all that will be set out in the staff handbook/HR policies once you start.

Or that the enhanced maternity pay is only to employees who've completed a certain period of time say 2 yrs

beckysbobbles1

Yes I imagine it may be enhanced maternity after two years service. If that is the case then I will wait the required time as it'll be more beneficial for us financially.

Takeaway_Addict

Exodi wrote: »

26 weeks to qualifying week for SMP, 15 weeks to birth = 41 weeks.

Which essentially means you can get pregnant almost as soon as you start and be eligible for maternity pay.

I must implore you not to do this though, I'm good friends with a small business owner and the scenario above has happened and crippled his business.

Why?


If the OP waits a year the costs are still the same. Your friend gets most of the maternity pay back so its holidays and possibly some sickness that are added costs (which I hasten to add I think should be government paid) but amount to a few grand. If your friend was that close to being crippled why were they hiring in the first place?

DontBringBertie

Presumably they were hiring because they needed someone to do some work. Rather than join for 6 months and disappear for a year.

Exodi

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

Why?


If the OP waits a year the costs are still the same. Your friend gets most of the maternity pay back so its holidays and possibly some sickness that are added costs (which I hasten to add I think should be government paid) but amount to a few grand. If your friend was that close to being crippled why were they hiring in the first place?

Whilst I agree with your sentiment being that costs should be thereabouts the same regardless of when maternity is taken in theory, I can understand his upset.

When you consider that for the first X months of someones employment whilst being trained, they are, of lack of a better term, a financial drain on a business. From an employers perspective, you can imagine the annoyance of investing to train someone up over X months to finally be at a level they are of benefit to the business - to then have them immediately go off on maternity for a year and then having to begin the cycle again with their replacement (this could potentially be worse should they be replacing someone who trained them during a notice period).

Needless to say, dismissal for exercising the right to maternity is unlawful under the Equality Act so you have to make sure the job is available when they get back. I mention this as a) you then need to hire a temporary replacement - this can often be expensive and generally offers a lower quality pool of candidates. b) as is also often the case, should the employee decide not to return to work and the temp unable to take on the role permanently, you may need to hire and train a third person (as is the case for my friend).

The other part that makes it particularly difficult to swallow is that the employee I refer to in my earlier comment has made comments on social media about intending to try for another child, needless to say, even the most level person on the planet wouldn't be too impressed at the prospect of paying for another year for virtually nothing AGAIN.

If I'm honest, I was a firm supporter of rights to maternity but this whole situation (which I can only describe as exploitative) has made me question the fairness on employers.

It ultimately leads to smaller businesses being unwilling to employ women in their mid 20's (as my friend has explicitly said).. as you said, I'd love to see some government subsidies in regards to this.

Savvy_Sue

Exodi wrote: »

It ultimately leads to smaller businesses being unwilling to employ women in their mid 20's (as my friend has explicitly said).. as you said, I'd love to see some government subsidies in regards to this.

I can understand why your friend is upset, but they are aware that a) women can have babies much later than in their mid 20s? and b) partners can share maternity leave, so staff of any age / gender might be absent from work for extended periods too?

Exodi

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

I can understand why your friend is upset, but they are aware that a) women can have babies much later than in their mid 20s? and b) partners can share maternity leave, so staff of any age / gender might be absent from work for extended periods too?

I'm not really sure I understand the point of your post. I'm paraphrasing his words but obviously we're aware women can give birth later than their mid 20's... I'm sure you're perfectly aware of the demographic being referred to here. Whether that's mid 20's to mid 30's the sentiment of the above is the same.

I'm also confused by your second point... only mothers can take maternity leave.... it's pretty obvious they'll typically take the lion's share of this even if they do SPL with their partner after the birth?