# Company refusing to pay Paternity Benefit



## Showmethemoney (17 Jan 2017)

Hi everyone, I hope this is the correct forum to post this. Perhaps someone might be able to offer advice on the following.

My company is refusing to pay anything to top up the 2 weeks Paternity Benefit that is now available to fathers.  However they pay nearly 4 months top up for Maternity Benefit. They top this up to full pay.

Are they within their rights to pay Maternity but not Paternity Benefit. They say they are but it seems a little unfair to me.


----------



## emeralds (17 Jan 2017)

Yes they are. The Paternity Leave and Benefit Act does not stipulate that the leave has to be paid leave.


----------



## Joe_90 (17 Jan 2017)

The point the OP is making is that there is one policy for Women and a different policy men which would appear to be discrimination but would not appear to be illegal.


----------



## Showmethemoney (18 Jan 2017)

Thank you for the replies. So it is legal discrimination in a way. Maybe in a few years more companies will come on board and pay something towards it and it will become the norm like Maternity Benefit.


----------



## torblednam (18 Jan 2017)

Joe_90 said:


> The point the OP is making is that there is one policy for Women and a different policy men which would appear to be discrimination but would not appear to be illegal.



I agree with the first half of the above sentence, but I don't understand how the second half necessarily follows.

How can it not be illegal (as discrimination on grounds of gender) to treat female and male employees differently in the same circumstances?


----------



## cremeegg (18 Jan 2017)

A company has no obligation to top up maternity pay or paternity pay. It does have an obligation not to discriminate between employees on the basis of gender. 

The question is, if a company tops up maternity pay but does not top up paternity pay, is this discrimination on the basis of gender.

I do not think that there is settled law on this matter.

The OP would probably have a strong case for an Employment Tribunal.


----------



## torblednam (18 Jan 2017)

cremeegg said:


> A company has no obligation to top up maternity pay or paternity pay. It does have an obligation not to discriminate between employees on the basis of gender.
> 
> The question is, if a company tops up maternity pay but does not top up paternity pay, is this discrimination on the basis of gender.
> 
> ...



+1

I wasn't suggesting that the employer has any legal obligation to top up male employees' pay while on paternity leave, but if they choose not to, then they can't continue to top up female employees' pay who are on maternity leave, as the result is discrimination.

From a practical and a pragmatic perspective, it may not be very sensible for someone to drag their employer to a tribunal and sour relations, for the sake of {2 weeks} x {the difference between the statutory payment and their normal wage}...


----------



## T McGibney (18 Jan 2017)

cremeegg said:


> The question is, if a company tops up maternity pay but does not top up paternity pay, is this discrimination on the basis of gender.



I assume Paternity Benefit is open to the female partner of a new mother in receipt of Maternity Benefit? If so, a refusal to top it up in line with maternity pay top-ups might constitute discrimination, but not on the basis of gender.


----------



## thedaddyman (18 Jan 2017)

T McGibney said:


> I assume Paternity Benefit is open to the female partner of a new mother in receipt of Maternity Benefit? If so, a refusal to top it up in line with maternity pay top-ups might constitute discrimination, but not on the basis of gender.



Correct, paternity benefit is a benefit open to new parents of a child aside from the mother. That includes same sex partnerships. In the case of an adopted child, the couple nominates one parent to receive the benefit


----------



## Bronte (18 Jan 2017)

Is it discrimination against a man that he doesn't spend nine months pregnant and might just need a bit of a rest afterwards.  Paid for because that's what society thinks is the right thing to do.  And what about breast feeding.  Should women not get paid leave to do that.


----------



## torblednam (18 Jan 2017)

Bronte said:


> Is it discrimination against a man that he doesn't spend nine months pregnant and might just need a bit of a rest afterwards.  Paid for because that's what society thinks is the right thing to do.  And what about breast feeding.  Should women not get paid leave to do that.



They do in the public sector, not sure about the extent to which they do in the private sector...


----------



## Purple (19 Jan 2017)

Bronte said:


> Is it discrimination against a man that he doesn't spend nine months pregnant and might just need a bit of a rest afterwards.


 No. That's just silly.


----------



## Bronte (19 Jan 2017)

How is it silly Purple?  I'm not arguing men and women shouldn't be treated equally, but it is a physical fact that the woman carries a baby for nine month, goes through the birth process, is generally needing a rest and will also need to be at home if she's breastfeeding.  And society recognised that fact by allowing women to be paid for that.

I'm not arguing that men shouldn't be paid parernity leave.  Just pointing out why it is women who are paid.  And there are cases of women going back to work very quickly.  That high flier Nicola Horlock was one.


----------



## Purple (19 Jan 2017)

Bronte said:


> How is it silly Purple?  I'm not arguing men and women shouldn't be treated equally, but it is a physical fact that the woman carries a baby for nine month, goes through the birth process, is generally needing a rest and will also need to be at home if she's breastfeeding.  And society recognised that fact by allowing women to be paid for that.
> 
> I'm not arguing that men shouldn't be paid parernity leave.  Just pointing out why it is women who are paid.  And there are cases of women going back to work very quickly.  That high flier Nicola Horlock was one.



Of course women need to recover after giving birth but for generations they got up to 12 weeks off. Six months is not necessary for a physical recovery. Why not have six months of parental leave where the mother has to take 12 weeks but either parent can take the other 12 weeks? Not only would it give fathers a chance to bond with their children (yes, fathers matter too) but it would negate, to a great extent, the workplace barrier women face when employers know they are likely to take  6 months off at a time. Large companies and the Public sector can deal with that but when hiring a key employee in a small organisation it will always be a factor.


----------



## jjm (19 Jan 2017)

As Bonte pointer out Maternity leave is unique to the mother and should not be mixed up with parental leave .Parental leave is time out to look after the next generation. The child interest come first.Parents should be released from work in return for suspension of wages/salary.They should be paid an allowance I have no problem paying a little extra tn tax to allow parents to look after there children in the first year if the want to,


----------



## elcato (19 Jan 2017)

I was wondering how long it would take before the aul 'someone think of the childer' would start .....


----------



## Purple (20 Jan 2017)

jjm2016 said:


> As Bonte pointer out Maternity leave is unique to the mother and should not be mixed up with parental leave .Parental leave is time out to look after the next generation. The child interest come first.Parents should be released from work in return for suspension of wages/salary.They should be paid an allowance I have no problem paying a little extra tn tax to allow parents to look after there children in the first year if the want to,


I think 6 months for the mother only is too long and is a major factor in employment discrimination against women. Of course there is a link between maternity leave and parental leave; mothers are parents but so are fathers.


----------



## jjm (20 Jan 2017)

As a father I think the bond between baby and mother after birth is special I don't think  6 months is a long time for a mother ..As I said  parents should be paid an  allowance in the first 12 to 24 months after birth .As a father I would love to take 6 months off after the mother went back to work until baby is 12 month old if we had a system in place .


----------



## elcato (20 Jan 2017)

jjm2016 said:


> As a father I would love to take 6 months off after the mother went back to work until baby is 12 month old if we had a system in place


I presume you don't just mean unpaid leave/career break options. I think this would be an idea as long as it was unpaid. Otherwise everyone else who may not have children end up paying for it and as Purple points out it will work against hiring certain people depending on their age.


----------



## jjm (20 Jan 2017)

elcato unpaid but the person taking it would get an allowance option for father or mother . Germany is looking at changing system so people who do not have children to pay more into state pension .At present we are looking at state paying for creche first few years .


----------



## Purple (20 Jan 2017)

jjm2016 said:


> As a father I think the bond between baby and mother after birth is special


 I agree but as a father I also think the bond between father and child is equally special. 


jjm2016 said:


> I don't think  6 months is a long time for a mother ..As I said  parents should be paid an  allowance in the first 12 to 24 months after birth .As a father I would love to take 6 months off after the mother went back to work until baby is 12 month old if we had a system in place .


 I'd love if someone else would pay for me to stay at home with the kids all the time but that's not realistic or fair. We have to remember that we are competing in a global economy and that Europe will be on the periphery of that economy within a few decades. All this soft nanny state BS will destroy our children's future if we keep going the way we are. The Koreans and Chinese and Brazilians and Costa Ricans etc. will wipe the floor with us. 
If you choose to have kids then don't expect other people to pay for them. And don't start that nonsense about them paying our pensions; there won't be a state pension for people who work by the time I retire as the present ponzi scheme is unsustainable. I have 4 kids and I'm against the state paying for creche places and universal children's allowance. A tax free allowance per child would be fairer and much cheaper for the State to administer but ultimately if you have kids then look after them yourself. The State is already educating them and providing health services. Do the rest yourself. It's not easy but that's no reason to expect others to do your job for you.


----------



## cremeegg (20 Jan 2017)

jjm2016 said:


> As Bonte pointer out Maternity leave is unique to the mother and should not be mixed up with parental leave .Parental leave is time out to look after the next generation. The child interest come first.Parents should be released from work in return for suspension of wages/salary.They should be paid an allowance I have no problem paying a little extra tn tax to allow parents to look after there children in the first year if the want to,



As Bonte pointer out *m*aternity leave is unique to the mother and should not be mixed up with parental leave*. *Parental leave is time out to look after the next generation. The child*'s* interest come first.-Parents should be released from work in return for suspension of wages/salary. -They should be paid an allowance*,* I have no problem paying a little extra *i*n tax to allow parents to look after *their *children in the first year if the*y* want to*.*
*
Yur welcom*


----------



## Bronte (20 Jan 2017)

Agreed Purple, the bond between father and child is equally special. Except for breastfeeding! That actually benefits the man as he doesn't have to get up on the middle of the night. 

I don't mind who gets paid, either parent, but I think a woman needs a minimum of three months and a child six months to a year.


----------



## David Silva (27 Jan 2017)

My understanding is that paternity leave is to benefit the family and not just a holiday for fathers. The father gets a chance to bond and help the mother in the first few weeks which can physically and emotionally difficult after giving birth. The point the original poster is making is that topping up maternity and not paternity is treating employees differently based on gender. I agree with this, whether you tackle your company on the matter is a judgement call. A lot of companies were giving paid paternity leave prior to this legislation. Spending time with children especially in the early years has a huge benefit to them which in turn will benefit society as a whole so i see it as a long term investment.


----------



## jjm (27 Jan 2017)

Where I work For the last 35 years Fathers/ were allowed to take there Holidays   Once the baby was born.If the wanted to they could work up there holidays again over 12 months . 6 months before and 6 months after .If they did not want to take it that was OK .Don't know anyone who did not use it.Nobody ever had a problem with it.They also had first refusal to work annual shutdown If people were required to work.I suppose some posters will say this is not fair on people who do not have children.Now the can take there  2 week parental leave also .


----------



## Purple (1 Feb 2017)

David Silva said:


> Spending time with children especially in the early years has a huge benefit to them which in turn will benefit society as a whole so i see it as a long term investment.


 So why expect the employer to pay for it, why not society as a whole? The father is paying tax which is proportional to his income. Why not have the State pay him two weeks holiday pay, at whatever rate he usually gets, for the two weeks off?


----------



## David Silva (2 Feb 2017)

Don't necessarily agree that an employer should bear the brunt especially a smaller business but it is important that investment in our future. The point is though regarding the top up and whether it is legally treating men and women the same in terms of their employment. In my view if you top up maternity you should have to top up paternity and that is due to the law whatever your view on the matter.


----------



## T McGibney (2 Feb 2017)

David Silva said:


> In my view if you top up maternity you should have to top up paternity and that is due to the law whatever your view on the matter.



You seem to be contradicting yourself here. If it is the law, rather than just your view, can you please cite a source?


----------



## Ravima (2 Feb 2017)

An employer is NOT obliged to top up pay for mother either!


----------



## David Silva (3 Feb 2017)

This is from WRC website: 
*Leave/Benefit: *
A relevant parent will be entitled to two continuous weeks' paid leave in respect of births from September 2016. Payment will be at the rate of €230 per week, subject to a person having the appropriate PRSI contributions. This is the same as the current rate of maternity benefit. Similar to maternity leave, employers can top up paternity benefit if they want. It should be noted that where employers make a top up to female employees, they should ensure they do not discriminate against male employees in relation to a top up of paternity benefit. 

Have a look at any of the big legal firms advice on the matter they all recommend keeping maternity and paternity policies aligned to avoid being left open to discrimination claims.

I haven't heard of it being tested yet and whether someone will bring an employer to task over it is another story.


----------



## T McGibney (3 Feb 2017)

David Silva said:


> It should be noted that where employers make a top up to female employees, they should ensure they do not discriminate against male employees in relation to a top up of paternity benefit.


Kinda misses the point that female employees may also avail of paternity benefit, and once there is no discrimination between female and male employees in respect of top-ups of paternity benefit, there shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## David Silva (3 Feb 2017)

I'm sure this will be tested in court at some stage but the advice appears to be if you top up maternity you should top up paternity to avoid discrimination claims.


----------



## David Silva (18 Jan 2018)

Just looked at WRC website, the following cases appear which appear to contradict the quote from their website above but nevertheless this is the way they have been ruling.

WRC Cases/2017/September/ADJ-00005771

Cases/2017/July/ADJ-00006382


----------



## Purple (18 Jan 2018)

David Silva said:


> Just looked at WRC website, the following cases appear which appear to contradict the quote from their website above but nevertheless this is the way they have been ruling.
> 
> WRC Cases/2017/September/ADJ-00005771
> 
> Cases/2017/July/ADJ-00006382


Can you post a link (just copy and paste it into a post) as when I Googled for it I couldn't find it.


----------



## John Sipos (12 Apr 2018)

In America they get 6 weeks, it's so short


----------



## Purple (13 Apr 2018)

David Silva said:


> The point is though regarding the top up and whether it is legally treating men and women the same in terms of their employment.


Of course the law doesn't treat them the same; women get 6 months when they become a parent and men get 2 weeks when they become a parent.


----------



## Purple (13 Apr 2018)

John Sipos said:


> In America they get 6 weeks, it's so short


Until 1998 is was 14  weeks here, extended to 18 in 1998. It wasn't until 2007 that it was extended to the current 26 paid and 16 unpaid weeks. Therefore in the space of 10 years maternity leave tripled with the amount of it that is paid almost doubling. 

The result is that in effect women are unemployable in key roles in small businesses.


----------



## Ceist Beag (13 Apr 2018)

The tax treatment still very much favours individualisation whilst this maternity benefit promotes the mother staying at home. It would be nice if the government could try and be consistent in what it is trying to promote here. Either take a stance that you want more women in the workplace (rather than at home raising children) and promote policies that encourage that (as you are currently promoting this policy for men), or take a stance that you want to support one parent (women or men) staying at home raising children and promote policies that encourage that (including reversing some of the individualisation tax treatment changes).
The current messages coming out are mixed. They seem to be promoting choice for employees but as Purple says, the downside of that is that small businesses will look at someone who could be off on maternity for 6 months every couple of years for the next few years and think they might have better alternative candidates.


----------

