# Fulltime permanent position in a Third Level College. Maternity and "top up" payments



## Margie (19 Feb 2007)

I work in a fulltime permanent position in a Third Level College.  

I was initially told that i would get full pay (top up pay) while out on maternity leave only to be told quite bluntly last Friday after weeks of chasing that i won't get a cent from my employer.

I have to go on social welfare. I think this is disgusting.

There should be some law to enforce that permant employees are looked after while out on maternity leave.


----------



## Welfarite (19 Feb 2007)

*Re: Maternity Leave*

They are looked after ...they get Maternity Benefit.


----------



## ajapale (19 Feb 2007)

*Re: Maternity Leave*

Hi Margie and welcome to AAM,

You should contact your trade union representative and clarify the matter with them.

What does your contract of employment say about "top up" maternity payments?

Have other employees in the organiation got "top up" maternity payments.

Do a search for maternity benefit and "top up" and you will get many hits.

aj

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=298027
How do Companies deal Maternity Payment? "Dont Pay" or "Pay and Deduct MB"?
[broken link removed] is an excellent resource.

Im moving this thread from the SW forum to the Jobs/Careers forum which deals with employee entiltements such as this.


----------



## ClubMan (19 Feb 2007)

*Re: Maternity Leave*

You need to check your contract of employment as mentioned above. There is no statutory entitlement to salary (part or full) while on maternity leave. If you meet the relevant qualification criteria then you will qualify for _MB_. Some employers also pay salary in part or full.


----------



## Margie (19 Feb 2007)

*Re: Maternity Leave*

Welfarite, would you class going on social welfare as being looked after?  in my opinion employers should value good employees who work very diligently.  It's no wonder this country is in the state it's in.  if you sit at home on social welfare you seem to get more benefits than going to work full time all your life.  I feel very let down

Ajapale thank you for your advice but unfortunately we do not have a union first of all and i was never given a contract of employment.


----------



## ajapale (19 Feb 2007)

*Re: Maternity Leave*

Hi Marge,

The fact that you are not in a trade union does not mean that you cant contact them for advice.

Your employer has a statutory obligation to provide you with a contract of employement if you request one. How long have you been employed with this employer?


----------



## ClubMan (19 Feb 2007)

*Re: Maternity Leave*



Margie said:


> It's no wonder this country is in the state it's in.  if you sit at home on social welfare you seem to get more benefits than going to work full time all your life.


Not true as your specific situation illustrates. And, for exampl, many jobs pay a lot more than, say, _Jobseekers Allowance/Benefit_.


----------



## Lauren (19 Feb 2007)

In many countries there is no social welfare maternity benefit and most employers don't pay it either....Australia is only considering bringing it in now...


----------



## Margie (19 Feb 2007)

I there anyone in the same situation as myself?  While I appreciate that yes I will get the social welfare payment, is it not wrong of my employer to lead me on and to also tell me that they 'wouldn't see me stuck' only to be totally let down.  my employer will actually benefit from my leave as the person taking over for me is on a far lower wage.

I have lots of friends who got the top up payment while on maternity leave.  Also, some companies offer this as a basic entitlement.  am i being totally unreasonable?

i am also the first permanent employee to go on maternity leave in my job for the last 20 odd years.


----------



## ClubMan (19 Feb 2007)

*Re: Fulltime permanent position in a Third Level College. Maternity and "top up" paym*



Margie said:


> is it not wrong of my employer to lead me on and to also tell me that they 'wouldn't see me stuck' only to be totally let down.


Who told you that you would get salary while on maternity leave? Were they authorised to comment on this? Did they write it down? Get your contract of employment (to which you are entitled as mentioned above) and check it for details on this. If you have any hassle getting it then contact the DETE employment rights department for advice.


> I have lots of friends who got the top up payment while on maternity leave.  Also, some companies offer this as a basic entitlement.  am i being totally unreasonable?


 It's not a case of being unreasonable - just that some employers offer this as a benefit and others do not. You need to establish for certain whether your employer does regardless of what you might have been told verbally.


> i am also the first permanent employee to go on maternity leave in my job for the last 20 odd years.


 Not sure what the relevance of this is?


----------



## Welfarite (19 Feb 2007)

The "first in 20 years" might be relevant in how the employer is now treating the OP!  Obviously, they didn't know how to handle it and their empty promises have shown how ignorant they were of employee's feelings/rights in this matter. as you say, Clubman, the contratc is the key but it sounds futile as I doubt the employer ever countenanced this situation prior to this!


----------



## Margie (19 Feb 2007)

It was my boss that told me by mouth initially that I would get full pay.  This person then investigated further and told me that because the College is classed as the private sector, they don't have to pay me.

my comment about being the first person to go on leave in over 20 years was in response to another's question.


----------



## Margie (19 Feb 2007)

If I look for a contract of employment at this stage I can foresee what it will contain.  I suppose I just feel hard done by because I know so many people who do get this benefit.  I think the major advice here is to demand a contract of employment on your first day to avoid any confusion or hurt.

I feel very undervalued in terms of appreciation as a very hard working employee.  I know I will get over this but the way the whole situation was handled was very disappointing.  I wonder what the chances are of employers being made by law to top up in the furure


----------



## Trish2006 (19 Feb 2007)

Public sector automatically receive top up pay to the best of my knowledge.  A large proportion of larger employers seem to do so too.  However smaller employers in the private sector who do pay seem to be in the minority.  My employer paid me a top up, small IT company.  However they included a clause that if I did not return or left within 6 mths I had to repay everything they gave me, if I left between 6 mths and a year, I had to repay half.  Fair enough, I was glad to be getting a top up at all.  A friend of mine gets a top up up to 80% of her salary (again, small IT) and another few friends got nothing from their employers.
It sounds like the boss who told you you'd get full salary knew as much about it as you did, i.e. assumed that was they way it would be.  Unfortunately most people have to learn how to get by with just the govt benefit.


----------



## Trish2006 (19 Feb 2007)

Margie said:


> I wonder what the chances are of employers being made by law to top up in the furure


 
This won't happen as it would only result in noone employing women of a childbearing age.  Small companies would not be able to afford to pay 2 salaries for one job every time someone is on maternity.  My co only has 10 women but between us we've had 10 babies in the last 4 years.  People aren't replaced in here, everyone else just works a bit harder, but it means that they can afford to pay the top up.


----------



## ajapale (19 Feb 2007)

*Re: Fulltime permanent position in a Third Level College. Maternity and "top up" paym*



Trish2006 said:


> Public sector automatically receive top up pay to the best of my knowledge.



No, this is not true. I know of some women in the public sector whose contract of employment states that they will *not* get maternity benefit "top up".

I would guess that the majority of the Public Sector, most of the Public Service and 100% of the Civil Service get 100% maternity benefit "top up".



margie,

I know you say that you are not in a trade union but I still think it worth your while to contact them and hear what you have to say. 

The union may have experience in negotiating in similar third level private organisations. Trade unions are masters at the art of negotiation and it is possible that a compromise might be reached in your case. Or at least for the next time such a case arises.


----------



## Margie (19 Feb 2007)

Thank you Trisha for the info.  I appreciate all of the insights that i got from people today and yes i have learned a valuable lesson.  I also realise that some employers really value their employees by paying the top up.  unfortunately I have to accept the cards I have been dealt.


----------



## Margie (19 Feb 2007)

Ajapale, I understand what you are advising.  To be honest, when I was eventually told that I wouldn't get the top up I knew my employer didn't quite understand what I was suggesting i.e. a top up not full payment p.w.    I pushed my employer a little and they came back to me quite angry suggesting that I was railroading them into a decision.  I also explained to them that the person taking over for me was on a much lower wage so it would probably balance out.  I was reprimanded for this.

my employer was very angry with me over the whole situation and told me that they were very  disapopointed in the way I handled my query.

To add insult to injury I was then offered a 'once off' payment of one weeks wages as a settlement gesture.

Basically what I am saying is, if i were to involve a union I think my job would be in serious jeapordy.  I have already got devoured over asking for a benefit which I should have been told about in a contract and that would have avoided all of this.


----------



## ajapale (19 Feb 2007)

*Re: Fulltime permanent position in a Third Level College. Maternity and "top up" paym*

Hi Marge,

I understand how this must be for you what with a baby on the way and with what can only at best described as "poor communications" at work.

I get the impression that this is a small private organisation which does not have much Human Resource Management experience.

As you say I think the best thing you can do now is to "play with the cards that have been dealt" concentrate on your new arrival.

Did you have a look at rollercoaster.ie?

aj


----------



## ClubMan (19 Feb 2007)

Do other employess have written contracts of employment? Why did you never get one or ask for one?


----------



## Margie (19 Feb 2007)

Only academic staff seem to have contracts because they are not permanent.

i never asked for a contract because I thought if i'm permanent i'm automatically entitled to these benefits.  Silly me.


----------



## ClubMan (19 Feb 2007)

Either way, just to reiterate, you are perfectly entitled to a written copy of your contract. See CitizensInformation. You cannot be penalised for asking for this since it is a statutory entitlement. Similarly I don't see that you should have to put up with being berated for asking your employer reasonable questions about the nature of your benefits of employment.


----------



## Margie (20 Feb 2007)

Thank you Clubman I found that website extremely informative.


----------



## pat127 (20 Feb 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Do other employess have written contracts of employment? Why did you never get one or ask for one?


 
It'd be nice to think that other employees have written contracts or even nicer if they mention the right to 'top-ups'. If they don't however, the  problem as I see it is that the employer refuses to pay one and as it's a discretionary matter it's doesn't follow that it'll be paid just because Margie manages to get her contract put in writing.

In fact, a contract exists regardless of whether or not it's in writing. The right to statutory benefits is not affected and what has been done in the past ('custom and practice') is deemed to be part of the contract also. Consequently had top-ups been paid in the past Margie might well have a case but she indicates that that wasn't so. The reference to not 'seeing her stuck' is too vague to be of any effective use if for instance Margie produced a witness or two to verify that it had been said. The employer would probably argue that the offer of a week's pay was what he had in mind, or that circumstances had changed!

As to Margie's statement that 'there should be some law to enforce that permanent employees are looked after while out on maternity leave'...

I don't see any way in which all employers could be obliged to keep the employee on the payroll or provide 'top-ups' because they'll come up with a raft of arguments, e.g. an inability to pay, the costs of employing a replacement etc and in the end the Govt would have to introduce some form of grant scheme. In effect that is what they do by providing Maternity Benefit. Whether or not it's adequate is another argument altogether.


----------



## Margie (20 Feb 2007)

Pat 127, I appreciate your input and totally understand what you are saying but i feel very strongly that if you are permanent in your employment you should be offered something by your employer to show that you are a valued member of staff firstly and secondly as a good will gesture.  What I don't understand is how so many employees in the private sector do get the top-up and others like me don't.

While I certainly don't mean to whinge on about this, I must stress that I would love to know how some employers (in the private sector) decipher to give the top-up and some don't. What really annoys me is that my employer will benefit from my absence as the person replacing me is on a much lower wage.


----------



## ClubMan (20 Feb 2007)

*Re: Fulltime permanent position in a Third Level College. Maternity and "top up" paym*



Margie said:


> What I don't understand is how so many employees in the private sector do get the top-up and others like me don't.


Some do. Some don't. There's no standard to this. It's all down to the individual employee's contract of employment and benefits package.


> While I certainly don't mean to whinge on about this, I must stress that I would love to know how some employers (in the private sector) decipher to give the top-up and some don't. What really annoys me is that my employer will benefit from my absence as the person replacing me is on a much lower wage.


Some employers decide for themselves that this is an important part of their standard benefits package in order to attract and retain key staff.


----------



## Margie (20 Feb 2007)

*Re: Fulltime permanent position in a Third Level College. Maternity and "top up" paym*



> Some employers decide for themselves that this is an important part of their standard benefits package in order to attract and retain key staff.


 

That's exactly my point. I really feel that you've hit the point there. It's all about retaining key staff members like myself.


----------



## nelly (20 Feb 2007)

*Re: Fulltime permanent position in a Third Level College. Maternity and "top up" paym*



Margie said:


> That's exactly my point. I really feel that you've hit the point there. It's all about retaining key staff members like myself.



that may be your point but the reality is that folks are in business to make money not provide people with nice jobs with wonderful perks. 

as for retaining key members of staff - i think providing pension contribution to a certain % for all staff would be a better stab at retaining employees than offering mat benefits as they would apply to all, and as this seems to be the first time maternity leave has been requested 

Margie - no offence but your not the first person to have state mat and not be sibsidised to the tune of your origional wages and you won't be the last.


----------



## ajapale (20 Feb 2007)

*Re: Fulltime permanent position in a Third Level College. Maternity and "top up" paym*



nelly said:


> as for retaining key members of staff - i think providing pension contribution to a certain % for all staff would be a better stab at retaining employees than offering mat benefits as they would apply to all



Margie,

Out of interest, has the organisation offered you membership of an occupational pernsion scheme? or perhaps has made a PRSA availiable to you?

Does the organisation have any other perqs or incentives (for example training courses, health insurance, flexi time etc). Somehow I doubt it, as they appear not to be at the cutting edge of HR "best practice".

aj


----------



## Margie (20 Feb 2007)

I appreciate where you are coming from nelly, i suppose I'm just feeling sorry for myself.

Also, while we're on the subject of pensions - the word pension has never been mentioned to me by my employer or any of the other perks mentioned by ajapale for that matter.

i will say this in their favour however, if i ever need to take an hour off here or there they are very accomodating but then i have to say that this would all balance out because sometimes i get delayed in work in the evening or taking my lunch (which is from 1 to 2pm)  etc.

We do not get paid time and a half for overtime, time and a quarter.  Also we get 25 days holidays a year which is generous in my mind but what has never been clarified is whether or not i have to take the few days that we are closed for Xmas out of this so  I have always ended up deducting these days form the 25 days.


----------



## picene (20 Feb 2007)

> the word pension has never been mentioned to


 
if ther are more then 10 full time employees then I think by law they have to offer you a pension 

as for Maternity benefit I know of no one who has ever got a top of payment. everyone I know works in the private sector


----------



## ajapale (20 Feb 2007)

*Re: Fulltime permanent position in a Third Level College. Maternity and "top up" paym*



picene said:


> as for Maternity benefit I know of no one who has ever got a top of payment. everyone I know works in the private sector



Very many of private sector companies provide "top up" maternity benefit. Its not always 100% though,  Ive seen 80% and 90%.


----------



## pat127 (20 Feb 2007)

Margie said:


> We do not get paid time and a half for overtime, time and a quarter. Also we get 25 days holidays a year which is generous in my mind but what has never been clarified is whether or not i have to take the few days that we are closed for Xmas out of this so I have always ended up deducting these days form the 25 days.


 
The Public Holidays in that period are not taken out of your minimum annual leave entitlement (which in the normal circumstance is 20 working days). These are New Year's Day, Christmas Day and St Stephen's Day. Any other working day comes out of your allotment. That incidentally is another matter that a good employer would make clear to staff on joining.


----------



## DrMoriarty (21 Feb 2007)

Margie said:


> I pushed my employer a little and they came back to me quite angry suggesting that I was railroading them into a decision. I also explained to them that the person taking over for me was on a much lower wage so it would probably balance out. I was reprimanded for this.





Margie said:


> ...my employer was very angry with me over the whole situation and told me that they were very disapopointed in the way I handled my query.
> 
> To add insult to injury I was then offered a 'once off' payment of one weeks wages as a settlement gesture.
> 
> Basically what I am saying is, if i were to involve a union I think my job would be in serious jeapordy.





Margie said:


> I suppose I'm just feeling sorry for myself.
> […]
> I will say this in their favour however, if I ever need to take an hour off here or there they are very accomodating but then I have to say that this would all balance out because… [etc.]


Marge, I think you are being far too tolerant/charitable about this. The above reads to me as somewhere between patronising ineptitude and outright harassment/discrimination, and it’s appalling that you should have to endure this kind of stress in your present condition.

I work in a privately-owned but state-funded institution, and I’ve heard horror stories from female colleagues (who constitute the vast majority of our staff, except at higher management level) about having to fight tooth and nail to extract from the management basic conditions re pay and leave that were their legal entitlement. I won’t go into detail here, obviously, and you probably shouldn’t, either.

Can I suggest the following?

First and foremost, try not to let this upset you. Your health and your baby’s are by far the most important consideration in all of this.
Have a look at the Maternity Protection Act, 1994, particularly Part II, sections 8-9, 13-14 and Part IV, section 22 (4) and sections 26-27.
Notify your employer by means of the relevant form MB 10, indicate that you take exception to their treatment of you and request that they henceforth communicate with you in writing in relation to this matter.
If your leave commences after 1 March 2007, your entitlement has been raised from 14 to 26 weeks’ paid leave. See this .pdf leaflet from UCD* for handy reference.
Call the Maternity Benefit section in Letterkenny (LoCall 1890 690 690) and, I would suggest, the Equality Authority (LoCall 1890 245 545; see their relevant publications, too). You can discuss your circumstances with them in confidence.
The very best of luck to you, and remember — _Illegitimi non carborundum_!  

_* Not my employer. The way things are going, Irish universities will probably soon be state-owned but privately-funded, anyway!_


----------



## pat127 (21 Feb 2007)

Margie said:


> Also, while we're on the subject of pensions - the word pension has never been mentioned to me by my employer


 
No one has picked this up as far as I can see and I suspect you already have enough on your plate coping with all the excellent advice you're received here.

Just for the record however, an employer is not obliged to provide you with an occupational pension scheme but the following should be of interest. I've taken it from 

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/c...rsonal-finance/pensions/occupational_pensions

"From 2003 onwards, Personal Retirement Savings Accounts (PRSAs) became available. These are designed to be used instead of occupational pension schemes by employers who do not wish to sponsor such schemes. They may also be used to supplement occupational scheme benefits, as Additional Voluntary Contributions (AVCs) and as a substitute for personal pension schemes. From 15 September 2003, employers must offer access to at least one standard PRSA to any employee who is not eligible to join an occupational pension scheme within 6 months of joining employment and must offer a PRSA for AVC purposes if there is no facility for AVCs within the scheme. Further information on PRSA is available from the Pension Board's website "

Good luck with everything.


----------



## aircobra19 (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: Fulltime permanent position in a Third Level College. Maternity and "top up" paym*



Trish2006 said:


> ....A large proportion of larger employers seem to do so too.  However smaller employers in the private sector who do pay seem to be in the minority. ...



Theres many large private sector companies who don't pay it. 

Its part of your contract. Some places have it some don't. That goes for public and private regardless of size. 

While you are looking into this you look into your entitlements to leave, maternity and parental. Parental leave is only an entitlement if you take it all together. If you try to take it piecemeal a company can refuse it. They can only refuse it once if you take all together.


----------



## ClubMan (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: Fulltime permanent position in a Third Level College. Maternity and "top up" paym*



aircobra19 said:


> Parental leave is only an entitlement if you take it all together.


Eh? That does not seem to tally with the information posted on CitizensInformation.


> *Amount of parental leave*
> 
> Parental leave is available for each child and amounts to a total of 14 weeks per child. Where an employee has more than one child, parental leave is limited to 14 weeks in a 12-month period. This can be longer if the employer agrees. (This restriction does not apply in the case of a multiple birth, such as twins or triplets.)
> 
> ...


----------



## Margie (21 Feb 2007)

Thanks for that Pat 127.

it seems there's a lot I haven't been made aware of by my employer.


----------



## DrMoriarty (21 Feb 2007)

Margie said:


> If I look for a contract of employment at this stage I can foresee what it will contain.


I forgot to add that I would be wary of doing this, Margie. As things stand, you enjoy various statutory entitlements and legal rights — even though your employers haven't made you aware of them, and are possibly unaware/uninformed themselves (ironically enough). If you now seek to formalise your position by requesting a written contract, they may well try to insert all sorts of new restrictions and conditions, as a sort of bargaining piece. My own employers started this lark a few years ago, so I have recently-appointed colleagues who are contractually bound to/precluded from all sorts of things (for example, their contracts require them to live within a certain distance of the workplace). Terms of employment are not inalienable rights, so don't sign anything away!

As I said at (1) above, right now you should look out for your own wellbeing, disengage from what seem likely to be unpleasant or confrontational negotiation scenarios, and think positive. Leave the battles to another day.


----------



## ClubMan (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: Fulltime permanent position in a Third Level College. Maternity and "top up" paym*



DrMoriarty said:


> I forgot to add that I would be wary of doing this, Margie. As things stand, you enjoy various statutory entitlements and legal rights — even though your employers haven't made you aware of them, and are possibly unaware/uninformed themselves (ironically enough). If you now seek to formalise your position by requesting a written contract, they may well try to insert all sorts of new restrictions and conditions, as a sort of bargaining piece.


But they can never abrogate your statutory rights no matter what they put in the contract as far as I know.


> for example, their contracts require them to live within a certain distance of the workplace).


 Is that actually legal? What is the supposed penaltu for them failing to continue to meet this condition? I can't imagine that this is enforceable. Unenforceable clauses in contracts are not unusual (e.g. most non-compete clauses are for all intents and purposes unenforceable).


> Terms of employment are not inalienable rights, so don't sign anything away


 Statutory rights are inalienable as far as I know.


----------



## aircobra19 (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: Fulltime permanent position in a Third Level College. Maternity and "top up" paym*



ClubMan said:


> Eh? That does not seem to tally with the information posted on CitizensInformation.



That 6 weeks bit is a recent 2006 Amendment which I hadn't read before. http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?locID=106&docID=540 Anyway anything other than that, ie one or two days a week or a month, only "If your employer agrees".  In practical terms a lot of people can't afford to take 6 weeks or longer off in go. Whereas they might be able to afford one day a week etc. Its something to conisder. Also its easier to take directly after your maternity leave, trying to take it later can be difficult, because you have childcare arranged etc. Something to think about.


----------



## DrMoriarty (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: Fulltime permanent position in a Third Level College. Maternity and "top up" paym*



ClubMan said:


> But they can never abrogate your statutory rights no matter what they put in the contract as far as I know.


No, but they can request that you sign up to T&Cs which don't breach your statutory rights. Confidentiality or non-compete clauses would be an example, although they wouldn't really apply here.


ClubMan said:


> Is that actually legal? What is the supposed penaltu for them failing to continue to meet this condition? I can't imagine that this is enforceable. Unenforceable clauses in contracts are not unusual (e.g. most non-compete clauses are for all intents and purposes unenforceable).


I suspect that that's the case here, too — it hasn't been put to the test, afaik. I have no written contract other than my (fairly summary) job description, as advertised at the time, and the subsequent formal letter of offer which specifies my point of entry on the salary scale. Newer appointees' contracts specify minimum numbers of teaching contact hours and a range of additional supervisory/administrative duties. Mine are a matter of negotiation, 'custom and practice' and a sense of mutual fairness. There hasn't been a problem yet, but if that were to change one day I think I'd be glad to have a more minimal contract than the one currently being offered to new appointments. But this is getting a little off-topic...


----------



## ClubMan (21 Feb 2007)

*Re: Fulltime permanent position in a Third Level College. Maternity and "top up" paym*



DrMoriarty said:


> No, but they can request that you sign up to T&Cs which don't breach your statutory rights. Confidentiality or non-compete clauses would be an example, although they wouldn't really apply here.


A non compete clause is generally unenforceable in _Ireland _as far as I know. At least that's the legal advice I got on it a few years back. Note that I am not talking about stealing intellectual property or anything like that here. Basically a former employer cannot prevent you from earning a living even if this means you working for a competitor.


> Mine are a matter of negotiation, 'custom and practice' and a sense of mutual fairness.


 All well and good if you and your employer are fair. But the latter doesn't seem to apply in _Margie's_ case since her employer led her to believe that she was entitled to some benefits to which it now seems she may not be.


----------



## DrMoriarty (21 Feb 2007)

Zigackly.


----------



## ClubMan (21 Feb 2007)

is one legal view on the issue of employment contract non-compete clauses:


> *H.	EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS*
> 
> *Restraint of Trade*
> 
> The common law Doctrine of Restraint of Trade has long been used to regulate employee non-compete clauses. Under the Doctrine, a non-compete clause in an employment agreement must be reasonable if it is to be enforceable. What is reasonable will depend upon the circumstances of each individual case. A non-compete clause in an employment agreement must be limited in scope to the business of the company, and in geographic area to the area in which the company carries out its business. The time-limit must be reasonable, and this will vary depending upon the context. An employee may be restrained from soliciting customers and other employees but in practice it may be difficult to enforce these clauses in the courts.


----------



## moneygrower (22 Feb 2007)

Hi Margie,
I don't think not being the first or last has much relevance to your case, you have my sympathy dealing with this stress on top of your pregnancy. If you find you don't get anywhere with your current employer ( a friend of mine was told "if they want you back they'll pay you") and decide to go for a job where you'll be appreciated, when your ready to go back to work, surely you've perfect experience to get a job in the state sector such as the VEC? That way you will have family friendly hours and more holidays! If you go this route start looking well in advance, the state sector is frightening slow  ..
Good luck with your baby I hope everything else goes well for you


----------



## Margie (22 Feb 2007)

moneygrower, thank you for your lovely comment.  I was thinking of a change of job to be honest where i can get better entitlements.

The other thing that really annoys me about my job is that we are paid by cheque which is stoneage at this stage.  They refuse to pay into our bank accounts.

Fed up with the whole lot really to be honest.


----------



## Purple (22 Feb 2007)

Some employers in the private sector don’t pay top ups because some women take maternity leave even when they have no intention of going back to work when the leave is up. My company pays maternity top ups even though the last employees to take it have not come back. One of them asked for an extra month, got paid, and then quit. We learned later that she had planned to do this from the start.  Despite this I think it is right and proper that companies should top up maternity pay where they can afford to do so.


----------



## moneygrower (22 Feb 2007)

I think another poster pointed out the way around this which is to demand a repayment when a person doesn't return to work which is fair enough. 
Best of luck Margie, I hope you look back an laugh in the future.


----------



## Purple (23 Feb 2007)

moneygrower said:


> I think another poster pointed out the way around this which is to demand a repayment when a person doesn't return to work which is fair enough.



How many companies are willing to take former employees to court? If the lady in question acted in good faith and then found that she couldn't come back due to personal circumstances then I do not think it would be right to look for their top up pay to be returned. I suppose my point is that both the employer and the employee should act in good faith and take on board the others perspective and needs. Legal action against former employees can be bad for moral and create a “them and us” mentality within an organisation. I would rather loose a few thousand Euro than go down that road. My point is that some companies cannot afford to take the chance and cannot afford to risk the legal fees if they loose a court case. In the case of the OP she was given a strong impression (at least) that her salary would be topped up during maternity leave. The fact that her employer has gone back on this shows a bad attitude and lack of respect for their employees. It seems that she has been treated very badly.


----------



## Trish2006 (23 Feb 2007)

I think if an employer isn't prepared to take someone to court to get back money that they're owed then there's no point in having a clawback clause cos noone would feel they had to come back.  I had to sign a statement that I would repay if I didn't stay in employment for a year.  I also didn't know how I'd feel about coming back so I made sure to put away enough money so that if I didn't come back I'd be able to repay.  Also holiday entitlements build up when you're off so that's nearly a month's salary that can be deducted from what you owe.  
I don't know many people who having signed a legal document saying they'd repay would try to get out of it and tell their employer that they'd have to sue them to get it.
If someone genuinely planned to come back and then couldn't for personal reasons then they're still obliged to repay the money.  They could probably come to some arrangement to pay over time, but it'd be like getting a bank loan and then not wanting to repay it because you can't afford to - that's just not an option.  If I woked in a different company I might not have got paid at all.

While I feel for the OP who was led to believe she would get paid, her manager got it wrong, it's HR who make these decisions and if they paid her because of the mistake then they'd also have to pay everyone after her and that may not be feasible.

As for employment contracts, these details weren't included in my contract and I doubt that they're in many contracts.  But it is in the HR policy which is available on the company intranet.  You have to be working there before you'd have access though.

At the end of the day it is a perk and perks can be provided and removed at will unless they're in contracts.  And no employer is obliged to provide perks.


----------



## Thirsty (24 Feb 2007)

> A non compete clause is generally unenforceable in _Ireland _as far as I know


 
They can and have been enforced here...there was a case a few years back of a (fairly senior) telecoms employee who was leaving to work for a competitor. Former employer was successful in preventing her from taking up for position for (I think) 6 months.

Having said that for your average employee it's unlikely a company would spend the money going to court to enforce such a clause.


----------

