Extended protection for new mothers?

A recently announced government consultation (which is running until 5 April) is seeking views on extending redundancy protection for new parents.

Research commissioned by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Equality and Human Rights Commission in 2016 found that one in nine mothers reported they felt forced to leave their job, and 77% said they had a negative or possibly discriminatory experience during pregnancy, maternity leave and/or on return from maternity leave. A report published by the Women and Equalities Commission in 2016 showed that the number of expectant and new mothers who felt forced to leave their jobs had almost doubled since 2005. The consultation seeks views on proposals to address these concerns.

Currently, under the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999, an employer must offer a suitable alternative vacancy (where one exists) to a woman on maternity leave before making her redundant. The proposal is to extend this protection for 6 months after the mother returns to work.

The consultation also seeks views on whether the protection should be extended to those taking adoption leave or shared parental leave.

However, this raises several questions, such as – what happens if the mother takes a period of annual leave before returning to work? Or, if the parents take shared parental leave which can be taken in blocks, returning to work in between taking periods of shared parental leave?

The consultation is also seeking views as to when the redundancy protection should start, e.g. should it start from when the woman notifies her employer that she is pregnant, rather than from the start of maternity leave.

In my view, the proposals as they stand are unlikely to make much of a difference in practice, and it is already unlawful to make someone redundant because of their pregnancy or their maternity leave. However, if the proposals are adopted then employers will need to be more vigilant when carrying out redundancy processes and be aware of employees who may be entitled to be offered suitable alternative vacancies in priority over others.

Whilst the consultation doesn’t ask any questions about extending Tribunal time limits for pregnancy and maternity related claims, it is something that the government has said it will consult on, and views on this are currently being sought by the Law Commission in its consultation.

We will of course keep you up to date with developments.

If you would like to talk through a situation you are dealing with, or if you need advice on any aspect of employment law, please contact any member of the Pure Employment Law team (01243 836840 or [email protected]).

Please note that this update is not intended to be exhaustive or be a substitute for legal advice. The application of the law in this area will often depend upon the specific facts and you are advised to seek specific advice on any given scenario.

Non-disclosure agreements in employment disputes

You may have seen the media expressing its outrage at the fact that employees who were settling disputes and getting paid settlements from their employers were being required to sign ”non-disclosure agreements”. The impression given by the media was that there was something underhand in this, and that these “NDAs” were being used to silence victims of sexual harassment.

I have been drafting Settlement Agreements (or Compromise Agreements) on behalf of employers, and advising employees on the terms and effect of them, since they were first introduced in 1992. I honestly cannot recall ever seeing a Settlement Agreement without a provision requiring the parties to keep the terms of the settlement confidential. The same applies to virtually every settlement of an employment dispute through the services of ACAS. So are these so called non-disclosure provisions necessary or desirable?

The disadvantage, at least from an employee’s perspective, is that the confidentiality provision will prevent them publicising inappropriate behaviour by employers or colleagues. That said, often the allegations against the employer or a colleague are just that – they have never been tested in any court or Tribunal, and whilst some are undoubtedly genuine, some may well not be.

MPs are now looking into the use of what they are describing as NDAs, with the Women and Equalities committee holding an enquiry into the use of NDAs in settling employment disputes. The committee has been told that their use is very widespread – something any employment lawyer had known for years! The committee has invited representations from interested parties so that they can make a recommendation as to the use of such clauses going forward.

Clearly, the use of non-disclosure or confidentiality clauses can cover up a multitude of sins, but of course the employee does not have to sign the Settlement Agreement. Obviously the reason employees sign Settlement Agreements is that they receive an additional payment from the employer, and if employers were not able to require that the fact and terms of the Settlement Agreement remain confidential, then it is likely that employers would be far more reluctant to offer settlements to departing employees. The impact of this would be significant. First, employers would be likely to offer far fewer Settlement Agreements which would of course mean that thousands of employees would lose out. Second, the number of disputes which would escalate to be resolved in the Employment Tribunals would increase substantially, and the Tribunal system is already creaking with the pressure of its workload which has increased massively since fees were abolished in 2016.

So, are confidentiality provisions necessary in Settlement Agreements? In theory, no – it is perfectly possible to settle disputes without requiring confidentiality. In practice, for most employers, yes. The majority of employers, and indeed employees, do not want details of their employment disputes or any settlement agreed between them being in the public domain. Is there a halfway house? I suspect it would be difficult to find a solution which would be acceptable to most employers, so it will be interesting to see what conclusions the Women and Equalities committee reaches.

If you would like to talk through a situation you are dealing with, or if you need advice on any aspect of employment law, please contact any member of the Pure Employment Law team (01243 836840 or [email protected]).

Please note that this update is not intended to be exhaustive or be a substitute for legal advice. The application of the law in this area will often depend upon the specific facts and you are advised to seek specific advice on any given scenario.

LEGAL INFORMATION

Pure Employment Law | 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH
[email protected] | Tel: 01243 836840

Pure Employment Law is the trading name of Pure Employment Law Limited, registered in England and Wales with company number 07134294 and whose registered office is 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH. Pure Employment Law Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with registration number 533794. A list of the company’s directors is available for inspection at the registered office

DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by Pure Employment Law and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.