• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Call us now: 01243 836 840   [email protected]
Pure Employment Law
  • Who We Are
    • Nicola Brown
    • Peter Stevens
    • David Jones
    • Debbie Poole
    • Linda Nye
    • Brenda Cherry
  • For Employers
    • Advice on HR and People issues
    • Investigations, Hearings and Appeals
    • Restructuring and Redundancy
    • Defending Employment Tribunal Claims
    • Dismissal of Senior Executives
    • Contracts, Handbooks and Policies
    • Employment Law Training
  • For Employees
    • Settlement Agreements
    • Workplace Issues including Disciplinary and Grievance
    • Bringing an Employment Tribunal Claim
  • Employment Law Events
  • Legal Updates
  • Testimonials
  • Vacancies
  • Contact us
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Are some parents more equal than others?

23rd October 2016

In a recent Employment Tribunal case in Scotland, a father was awarded over £28,000 compensation after his employer’s Family Friendly Policy was held to be discriminatory.

Mr Snell and his wife both worked for Network Rail and opted to take shared parental leave to care for their baby. The couple decided that Mr Snell’s wife would take 27 weeks leave, and Mr Snell would take 12 weeks’ leave (he later applied to extend his period of leave up to 24 weeks). Under their employer’s policy, Mr Snell’s wife would be paid full pay for 6 months, whereas he, as her partner, would only receive statutory shared parental pay of £139.58 per week.

Mr Snell raised a grievance arguing that he was being discriminated against on the basis of his sex because mothers received enhanced parental pay whilst fathers only received the statutory rate. Network Rail rejected the grievance. They argued that their policy applied equally to a mother’s partner regardless of whether they were male or female, and they believed that by paying the statutory amount they had met their legal obligations.

Mr Snell brought claims for direct and indirect discrimination in the Employment Tribunal. Network Rail argued that the correct comparator for Mr Snell was a female partner of a mother, who would also receive the statutory rate of pay under their policy. They also argued that even if their policy did put Mr Snell at a particular disadvantage because of his sex, it could be objectively justified as a way of helping them recruit and keep more female staff in a male dominated workforce.

By the time the case came before the Tribunal, Network Rail conceded that their policy had indirectly discriminated against Mr Snell in relation to his sex, so the Tribunal only had to determine how much compensation he should be awarded (Mr Snell had withdrawn his claim for direct discrimination).

Mr Snell’s total compensation of £28,321.03 included elements for: injury to feelings, future loss, interest, pension loss and his Tribunal fees. Some elements of the compensation were increased by 20% in light of Network Rail’s failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures i.e. failing to arrange meetings or to communicate the outcome of meetings to Mr Snell without unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal also took into account, when assessing how much Mr Snell should be awarded for injury to feelings, the delays on the part of Network Rail in dealing with his grievance and the fact that his not being able to finalise child care arrangements put him under considerable stress at a time when his wife was ill and in hospital.

There are lessons that can be learnt from how Mr Snell’s grievance was handled. Mr Snell’s manager had no previous experience of Network Rail’s grievance procedure, and had received no training on the Family Friendly Policy or on discrimination and diversity issues. There were also delays arising from communication with Network Rail’s external HR support, including about who should hear the grievance.

Many employers have traditionally paid mothers enhanced maternity pay, whilst paying paternity pay at the statutory rate and continue to pay maternity pay at a higher rate than shared parental pay. Whilst the Tribunal’s decision in Mr Snell’s case is not a binding one, it highlights some of the issues that can arise when shared parental pay is paid to mothers at a different rate to their partners (see our previous article here for a discussion on some of the issues around parental pay). The case also highlights some of the potential pitfalls for employers to be aware of when applying their family friendly policies and when dealing with any related grievances.

The Tribunal was informed that Network Rail has since changed its policy to ensure fairness, by “levelling down” the mother’s entitlement to the statutory rate of pay, although this was probably not the approach the government had in mind when shared parental leave was introduced to encourage parents to share childcare responsibilities. As we previously reported, the take up of shared parental leave has, not unexpectedly, been low and the lack of enhanced parental pay is likely to be a factor in this especially when many employers still pay an enhanced rate of pay to mothers on maternity leave. 

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.
Share this article
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg 0 0 Nicola Brown https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg Nicola Brown2016-10-23 10:00:342016-10-24 09:07:51Are some parents more equal than others?

Join our mailing list

* = required field
Mailing Lists


Recent Legal Updates

  • Discrimination found in gender critical belief case 27th July 2022
  • Court of Appeal overturns Tesco fire and rehire injunction 27th July 2022
  • Changes to fit notes 27th July 2022
  • Where are we with the fire and rehire Code of Practice? 27th July 2022
  • Can long Covid be a disability? 29th June 2022
Link to: Contact Us

Any questions? Why not get in touch!

Our advice is always given in plain English without any waffle, and we focus on providing practical solutions to our clients’ problems.

Contact us

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.

Privacy Policy | Cookies Policy | Terms & Conditions | How to make a complaint | Sitemap

© Pure Employment Law 2022

Scroll to top

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies as defined in our cookie policy.

Accept Cookie Policy

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Google Analytics Cookies

These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.

If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Other cookies

The following cookies are also needed - You can choose if you want to allow them:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only