Employer won't pay Statutory Maternity Pay

Jmoo

My wife is working at the BBC and has been advised she won't get support from her employer because she joined 8th May of this year. She is 27 weeks pregnant and will give birth in the middle of January 2025. They're arguing to get Statutory Maternity Pay she needed to have had 26 weeks employment by 29th September. They're now telling her to go to the job centre to get the support she needs. I can't make head nor tail of the BBC HR guidelines, but it says:

Parent Pay for birth parents/mothers
Your BBC Parent pay is basic pay and any continuing allowances (it does not include any additional payments) for up to 18 weeks followed by 21 weeks of statutory entitlement to Maternity Pay (SMP).
Basic pay is set as your basic pay at the last payday before the end of the ‘qualifying week’ (the 15th week before the Expect Week of Childbirth (EWC)).
To qualify for BBC Parent pay you must at the end of the qualifying week:

• be an employee of the BBC; and

• have been employed for a continuous period of at least 26 weeks.

It is sufficient for your BBC employment to have started at any time during the first week to accumulate the 26 weeks’ service required. The continuous employment must extend into the qualifying week, but it is not necessary for you to be employed for the whole of that week.
BBC Parent Pay is inclusive of Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP).
Statutory Maternity Pay
The qualifying criteria for Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) are the same as for BBC Parent Pay. In addition, you must earn above the Lower Earnings Limit set by Government. If you do not qualify for BBC Parent Pay or Statutory Maternity Pay you may be entitled to claim Maternity Allowance from the state.
SMP is defined as

• First six weeks of (maternity) leave paid at the rate of 90% of your average earnings

• Followed by 33 weeks paid at the lesser of either the weekly SMP rate or 90% of your average weekly earnings.

Average weekly earnings are your average gross earnings over a period of at least eight weeks up to and including the last payday before the end of the qualifying week.
If the calculation for the first six weeks of SMP results in a higher payment than BBC Parent (Maternity) Pay, then the higher payment will be made.
Any Parent leave beyond 39 weeks is unpaid. If the contract of employment expires before the 18 weeks, then BBC Parent  Pay is only payable up to the contract expiry date. However, any entitlement to SMP will continue beyond this date.
BBC Parent Pay and SMP both start on the same day which is the day on which the Parent leave commences.

Can anyone break down what it means? It's a stressful time and she isn't getting the advice she needs.

Northern_Wanderer

Jmoo said:

My wife is working at the BBC and has been advised she won't get support from her employer because she joined 8th May of this year. She is 27 weeks pregnant and will give birth in the middle of January 2025.

Parent Pay for birth parents/mothers
Basic pay is set as your basic pay at the last payday before the end of the ‘qualifying week’ (the 15th week before the Expect Week of Childbirth (EWC)).
To qualify for BBC Parent pay you must at the end of the qualifying week:

• be an employee of the BBC; and

• have been employed for a continuous period of at least 26 weeks.

 If you do not qualify for BBC Parent Pay or Statutory Maternity Pay you may be entitled to claim Maternity Allowance from the state.


Can anyone break down what it means? It's a stressful time and she isn't getting the advice she needs.

I worked out that 26 weeks from 8/5/24 is 06/11/24.

Her qualifying week is the 15th week before due date ( I used 15/1/25) which is 02/10/24

Because her qualifying week was before her 26 weeks of employent were up, she does not qualify for BBC Parent Pay.

You can check her entitlement to Maternity Allowance on https://www.gov.uk/maternity-allowance/what-youll-get

chrisbur

Follow the link above using the expected date of childbirth from the MATB1.  This will also check for maternity allowance and provide a link to details for this and how to claim it.  

Marcon

Jmoo said:

My wife is working at the BBC and has been advised she won't get support from her employer because she joined 8th May of this year. She is 27 weeks pregnant and will give birth in the middle of January 2025. They're arguing to get Statutory Maternity Pay she needed to have had 26 weeks employment by 29th September.

Can anyone break down what it means? It's a stressful time and she isn't getting the advice she needs.

I don't think they are 'arguing' - they are explaining to her, and in fairness are giving her 'the advice she needs' (ie an explanation of what she qualifies for from her employer).

https://www.gov.uk/maternity-pay-leave might help.

Savvy_Sue

I suspect it doesn't help that they are setting out what she would be entitled to, had she been employed for 26 weeks by 29th September. They should have given her form SMP1 which explains their decision - and as that form tells you to contact the Job Centre for more information, their advice is correct. 

Your wife may be entitled to Maternity Allowance: https://www.gov.uk/maternity-allowance. Was she working elsewhere before she went to the BBC?

FlyMeSomewhere79

No offence but if the baby is due mid January, that suggests that your wife was pregnant before she started the job. Companies will understandably have these rules to stop people applying for a job and keeping the pregnancy quiet until they get offered the job and then soon announcing they need a paid year off as they are pregnant! Then they have to pay a second salary to get maternity cover in for a year all for the sake of someone that only worked for 6 or 7 months for them.

You and your wife needed to discuss timings and whether it was realistic to want a new job and a pregnancy at the same time. As a female it annoys me because it impacts my employability and made my career harder to build. I've seen 3 women in my  career, have a year off with a baby, come back, get pregnant again within months and start planning the next year off and by and the time they've had two of the last three years off, they want their hours to be slashed to part time even though it's not suitable for the job and causes the employer all sorts of hassle and they think a lot harder about giving jobs to women of child bearing age as a consequence.

I take it that your wife didn't admit to the pregnancy at the interview and ask about maternity leave there and then!

Northern_Wanderer

FlyMeSomewhere79 said:

No offence but if the baby is due mid January, that suggests that your wife was pregnant before she started the job. Companies will understandably have these rules to stop people applying for a job and keeping the pregnancy quiet until they get offered the job and then soon announcing they need a paid year off as they are pregnant! Then they have to pay a second salary to get maternity cover in for a year all for the sake of someone that only worked for 6 or 7 months for them.

You and your wife needed to discuss timings and whether it was realistic to want a new job and a pregnancy at the same time. As a female it annoys me because it impacts my employability and made my career harder to build. I've seen 3 women in my  career, have a year off with a baby, come back, get pregnant again within months and start planning the next year off and by and the time they've had two of the last three years off, they want their hours to be slashed to part time even though it's not suitable for the job and causes the employer all sorts of hassle and they think a lot harder about giving jobs to women of child bearing age as a consequence.

I take it that your wife didn't admit to the pregnancy at the interview and ask about maternity leave there and then!

You do know that the government are planning to allow maternity pay from day 1 of employment?

I understand what you are saying but find your comments unnecessary as the OP just wanted clarification on their situation, not to be judged. As a woman, a little more compassion might be in order.

Vectis

Northern_Wanderer said:

FlyMeSomewhere79 said:

No offence but if the baby is due mid January, that suggests that your wife was pregnant before she started the job. Companies will understandably have these rules to stop people applying for a job and keeping the pregnancy quiet until they get offered the job and then soon announcing they need a paid year off as they are pregnant! Then they have to pay a second salary to get maternity cover in for a year all for the sake of someone that only worked for 6 or 7 months for them.

You and your wife needed to discuss timings and whether it was realistic to want a new job and a pregnancy at the same time. As a female it annoys me because it impacts my employability and made my career harder to build. I've seen 3 women in my  career, have a year off with a baby, come back, get pregnant again within months and start planning the next year off and by and the time they've had two of the last three years off, they want their hours to be slashed to part time even though it's not suitable for the job and causes the employer all sorts of hassle and they think a lot harder about giving jobs to women of child bearing age as a consequence.

I take it that your wife didn't admit to the pregnancy at the interview and ask about maternity leave there and then!

You do know that the government are planning to allow maternity pay from day 1 of employment?

I understand what you are saying but find your comments unnecessary as the OP just wanted clarification on their situation, not to be judged. As a woman, a little more compassion might be in order.

Based on your own comment that 'the OP just wanted clarification on their situation', the fact that you say that the government may be 'planning to allow maternity pay from day 1 of employment' is irrelevant too. It's simply not applicable to them. It's something that may be the case sometime in the future.

People are allowed to offer opinions on forums and It's not at all uncommon for other commenters to express a view on an OP's situation. And, to be honest, it's a fairly valid and common opinion when someone is 'playing the system' with their pregnancy dates and keeping it quiet at interview stage only to go off on maternity leave for a year just a few months later. I'm not quite sure why you think a woman should have more compassion in this situation than anyone else, either?

Andy_L

Northern_Wanderer said:

FlyMeSomewhere79 said:

No offence but if the baby is due mid January, that suggests that your wife was pregnant before she started the job. Companies will understandably have these rules to stop people applying for a job and keeping the pregnancy quiet until they get offered the job and then soon announcing they need a paid year off as they are pregnant! Then they have to pay a second salary to get maternity cover in for a year all for the sake of someone that only worked for 6 or 7 months for them.

You and your wife needed to discuss timings and whether it was realistic to want a new job and a pregnancy at the same time. As a female it annoys me because it impacts my employability and made my career harder to build. I've seen 3 women in my  career, have a year off with a baby, come back, get pregnant again within months and start planning the next year off and by and the time they've had two of the last three years off, they want their hours to be slashed to part time even though it's not suitable for the job and causes the employer all sorts of hassle and they think a lot harder about giving jobs to women of child bearing age as a consequence.

I take it that your wife didn't admit to the pregnancy at the interview and ask about maternity leave there and then!

You do know that the government are planning to allow maternity pay from day 1 of employment?

I understand what you are saying but find your comments unnecessary as the OP just wanted clarification on their situation, not to be judged. As a woman, a little more compassion might be in order.

no they aren't, maternity pay isn't in the new Employment Rights bill.

Probably because it doesn't have a qualifying period of employment like, eg, parental leave or the right to bring an unfair dismissal claim

Northern_Wanderer

Andy_L said:

Northern_Wanderer said:

You do know that the government are planning to allow maternity pay from day 1 of employment?

I understand what you are saying but find your comments unnecessary as the OP just wanted clarification on their situation, not to be judged. As a woman, a little more compassion might be in order.

no they aren't, maternity pay isn't in the new Employment Rights bill.

Probably because it doesn't have a qualifying period of employment like, eg, parental leave or the right to bring an unfair dismissal claim

It's mentioned here but could be incorrect, I did hear it on radio news as well: https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/employment/312-employment-features/58823-the-employment-rights-bill-2024-what-s-in-what-s-out-and-what-s-next

sheramber

Second reading of reading of the bill was on 31 October.

Does not look like anything will change soon

When will these changes take effect?

The good news for employers is that timescales for change are long. The Bill does not specify a ‘commencement date’ when it’s provisions will come into force, and it is likely that implementation will be ‘staggered’ with various aspects being brought into effect at different times.

Consultation on the Bill’s diverse measures will necessarily be time-consuming and complex and is likely to eat up much of next year. It is generally anticipated that the Bill’s flagship policies will not reach the statute book until 2026.

Indeed, there is a specific commitment in the ‘Next Steps’ paper that the Day 1 right to claim unfair dismissal will not come into effect until Autumn 2026.