# Can you quit after taking maternity leave?



## MissyMecano (26 Feb 2010)

Hi, I'm coming close to the end of my maternity leave and am considering not going back to work.  I fully intended going back to work and thought this would be no problem as while pregnant family had offered to babysit while myself and my partner were at work.  This has since fallen through and have worked out that after child minding fees I would be left with less then I have now on maternity leave.  What I was wondering is there a standard amount of time that you must return to work for after being in maternity leave?  any information would be much appreciated.


----------



## Purple (26 Feb 2010)

Take a look at your contract. If there's no claw-back clause then you should have no problem.


----------



## dereko1969 (26 Feb 2010)

apart from morally


----------



## mlouisa (26 Feb 2010)

hi i think it depends on whether you were paid while on maternity leave or not ? ( not just the gov one but also from your company ? ) if this is the case there may be a clause in your contract that says you must return for a certain amount of time. However if you only received the gov payment you may be fine. However - I do not know how this  would work if you are public sector. As far as I know public sector receive the full pay while on maternity leave while  ( i am a private sector worker myself )private sector not entitled to it


----------



## minkydog (26 Feb 2010)

I first went on maternity leave Sept 2006 had baby in november then on the day I was due back where was i ?? in hospital as I really sick expecting second baby. Went on sick leave then immediatly into maternity leave then took all the holidays due to me (tons by the way don't forget to add on the bank holidays) then  I took parental leave for both kids and then I gave in my notice. Basically I left in sept 2006 but stayed on the books and got bonuses etc until March 2009. So i think the naswer to your question is Yes but get all you can first !!!


----------



## Purple (1 Mar 2010)

minkydog said:


> I first went on maternity leave Sept 2006 had baby in november then on the day I was due back where was i ?? in hospital as I really sick expecting second baby. Went on sick leave then immediatly into maternity leave then took all the holidays due to me (tons by the way don't forget to add on the bank holidays) then  I took parental leave for both kids and then I gave in my notice. Basically I left in sept 2006 but stayed on the books and got bonuses etc until March 2009. So i think the naswer to your question is Yes but get all you can first !!!



While what you did is legal many people would question if it is moral as it could be seen as an abuse of the generosity of your employer. It may also result in a change in policy from your employer, i.e. that they no longer top-up maternity pay.


----------



## BRICKTOP (1 Mar 2010)

minkydog said:


> I first went on maternity leave Sept 2006 had baby in november then on the day I was due back where was i ?? in hospital as I really sick expecting second baby. Went on sick leave then immediatly into maternity leave then took all the holidays due to me (tons by the way don't forget to add on the bank holidays) then I took parental leave for both kids and then I gave in my notice. Basically I left in sept 2006 but stayed on the books and got bonuses etc until March 2009. So i think the naswer to your question is Yes but get all you can first !!!


 
What an attitude, no wonder we're in the state we're in.


----------



## ney001 (1 Mar 2010)

minkydog said:


> I first went on maternity leave Sept 2006 had baby in november then on the day I was due back where was i ?? in hospital as I really sick expecting second baby. Went on sick leave then immediatly into maternity leave then took all the holidays due to me (tons by the way don't forget to add on the bank holidays) then  I took parental leave for both kids and then I gave in my notice. Basically I left in sept 2006 but stayed on the books and got bonuses etc until March 2009. So i think the naswer to your question is Yes but get all you can first !!!



I am hoping you are just being facetious here! Otherwise......... well you should be very proud!


----------



## Magpie (1 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> While what you did is legal many people would question if it is moral as it could be seen as an abuse of the generosity of your employer. It may also result in a change in policy from your employer, i.e. that they no longer top-up maternity pay.



She doesn't say that they did top up maternity pay, it is unlikely. I have never heard of a firm that pays maternity that does not require a payback for non-return, and certainly not for 2nd maternity leave without returning to work. 
I'm willing to bet there was no top up.


----------



## ney001 (1 Mar 2010)

Magpie said:


> She doesn't say that they did top up maternity pay, it is unlikely. I have never heard of a firm that pays maternity that does not require a payback for non-return, and certainly not for 2nd maternity leave without returning to work.
> I'm willing to bet there was no top up.



From another post - Minkydog would appear to be a teacher!


----------



## Purple (1 Mar 2010)

Magpie said:


> She doesn't say that they did top up maternity pay, it is unlikely. I have never heard of a firm that pays maternity that does not require a payback for non-return, and certainly not for 2nd maternity leave without returning to work.
> I'm willing to bet there was no top up.



We are a small private company and we always pay top-up’s. We also offer full pay for any hospital visits/sickness associated with maternity.


----------



## Plek Trum (1 Mar 2010)

ney001 said:


> From another post - Minkydog would appear to be a teacher!


 
No wonder the country has gone upside down - the attitude of Minkydog and then to find out that she is a teacher.  Great grammar and excellent phrasing.  Just as well she was at home, paid for three years and wasn't teaching MY children.


----------



## Purple (1 Mar 2010)

ney001 said:


> From another post - Minkydog would appear to be a teacher!



If she's a teacher how did she get bonuses?


----------



## Magpie (1 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> We are a small private company and we always pay top-up’s. We also offer full pay for any hospital visits/sickness associated with maternity.



Do you not have an return to work clause for top-ups though? Would you pay out for a second maternity leave if the employee had not returned to work? 

PS, Any jobs going?


----------



## ney001 (1 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> If she's a teacher how did she get bonuses?



No Idea - perhaps in different employment at the time?



minkydog said:


> I always tell my students that the mocks are marked to take away marks but the markers in the LC are marking to give you marks!!


----------



## Purple (1 Mar 2010)

Magpie said:


> Do you not have an return to work clause for top-ups though? Would you pay out for a second maternity leave if the employee had not returned to work?


 No, we don’t have a claw-back clause and yes, we would pay for a second maternity leave.



Magpie said:


> PS, Any jobs going?


 We can’t get skilled people but it’s specialised work.


----------



## DB74 (1 Mar 2010)

minkydog said:


> I first went on maternity leave Sept 2006 had baby in november then on the day I was due back where was i ?? in hospital as I really sick expecting second baby. Went on sick leave then immediatly into maternity leave then took all the holidays due to me (tons by the way don't forget to add on the bank holidays) then I took parental leave for both kids and then I gave in my notice. Basically I left in sept 2006 but stayed on the books and got bonuses etc until March 2009. So i think the naswer to your question is Yes but get all you can first !!!


 
It's people like you who cause small private companies not to pay maternity leave to their staff.


----------



## Claire1956 (1 Mar 2010)

Why slate MinkyDog, the company set-up the system for it to be used this way......if the company owners don't use some foresight then it's their tough. BTW, I saw this 'mode of operation' by female employees in a large Irish co. that boasted about how it made 'X million profit per day' not so long ago. Why wouldn't a person take slice of whats available, particularly when their salaries no way reflect the companies profit.

Finally, no need to apply to our company, we don't offer salary while on maternity leave as we don't have the profits to do so.


----------



## minkydog (1 Mar 2010)

not a teacher was years ago !!!  company did not pay me a penny for maternity (which I do not complain about) They treated me very badly before this not paying for overtime etc . demanding extra work for no extra pay .. love they way you all assume things


----------



## Purple (2 Mar 2010)

Claire1956 said:


> Why slate MinkyDog, the company set-up the system for it to be used this way......if the company owners don't use some foresight then it's their tough. BTW, I saw this 'mode of operation' by female employees in a large Irish co. that boasted about how it made 'X million profit per day' not so long ago. Why wouldn't a person take slice of whats available, particularly when their salaries no way reflect the companies profit.


 Simply being employed by a company does not mean that you are contributing to the generation of their profits. The reason for not abusing lose terms and conditions is that it creates a “them and us” atmosphere in an organisation. Flexibility and understanding from all employees of a company (people in management positions are employees as well) makes for a better business that’s a nicer place to work. 



Claire1956 said:


> Finally, no need to apply to our company, we don't offer salary while on maternity leave as we don't have the profits to do so.


 I’m not surprised with attitudes like that.


----------



## ney001 (2 Mar 2010)

minkydog said:


> They treated me very badly before this not paying for overtime etc . demanding extra work for no extra pay ..



Wow, poor you - sounds like something from a Dickens novel! 



minkydog said:


> So i think the naswer to your question is Yes but get all you can first !!!



Still, you obviously got your own back! well done you! 

Just out of interest, OP doesn't seem to have been as badly treated as you have obviously been, do you still propose the same advice? i.e get all you can first?


----------



## MandaC (2 Mar 2010)

Agree it is people like that who ruin it for everybody else.   When I started in my job, it was made clear to me no paid maternity leave because people had previously milked the system.

This sort of attitudes puts employers off employing women of child bearing age.

I am actually quite shocked that someone would boast about doing it.


----------



## circle (3 Mar 2010)

MandaC said:


> Agree it is people like that who ruin it for everybody else. When I started in my job, it was made clear to me no paid maternity leave because people had previously milked the system.
> 
> This sort of attitudes puts employers off employing women of child bearing age.
> 
> I am actually quite shocked that someone would boast about doing it.


 
Agreed. A policy where you have to work for three years (before or after) to be entitled to pay for each term of leave might actually work out fairer. People would then have to pay back their paid leave if they left immediately it and hadn't 'worked up' the three years in advance. It would encourage small businesses to offer leave to loyal employees and ensure that women who are planning to stay in employment were more likely to get paid maternity leave.

It would also help in the cases that have been raised here recently where pregnant women were nervous about revealing their pregnancy during an interview for the job that they had been aiming for for years and intended on staying in for a long time.


----------



## Complainer (3 Mar 2010)

circle said:


> Agreed. A policy where you have to work for three years (before or after) to be entitled to pay for each term of leave might actually work out fairer. People would then have to pay back their paid leave if they left immediately it and hadn't 'worked up' the three years in advance. It would encourage small businesses to offer leave to loyal employees and ensure that women who are planning to stay in employment were more likely to get paid maternity leave.
> 
> It would also help in the cases that have been raised here recently where pregnant women were nervous about revealing their pregnancy during an interview for the job that they had been aiming for for years and intended on staying in for a long time.


It would also put unscrupulous employers in a position to treat these female employees badly over that three year period, given the potentially large debt left hanging over their heads.


----------



## Bazoo (11 Mar 2010)

Plek Trum said:


> No wonder the country has gone upside down - the attitude of Minkydog and then to find out that she is a teacher.*  Great grammar and excellent phrasing.*  Just as well she was at home, paid for three years and wasn't teaching MY children.



I'm assuming you got a private message/warning, ticking you off for that remark, Piek Trum. Don't you know you're not allowed to 'abuse' other posters over their poor grammar and spelling


----------



## Claire1956 (12 Mar 2010)

Purple your comment: "Simply being employed by a company does not mean that you are contributing to the generation of their profits. "

Wow Purple, must be great to work in your org. That would create far more of an 'us and them' attitude than anything that I have mentioned. You spout lot's of blurb about having a nice place to work, yet some of the staff don't contribute to the bottom line, whereas others do...........must be a very tiered org indeed. God help those that you look down on who are on the bottom rung!!!!! As far as we are concerned everyone contributes to the org.


----------



## Purple (12 Mar 2010)

Why do you assume that anyone not contributing to the bottom line is “on the bottom rung”? In my experience people at all levels are capable of coasting/incompetence/dossing. Also, why do you think I was referring to my own  place of work?

If I’ve touched a nerve then I apologise, it was not my intention.


----------



## redchariot (17 Mar 2010)

A friend of mine took maternity leave from her company knowing full well that she wouldn't be returning at the end; she justified it that she had worked there for eight years previous and she should be entitled to "something back". 

Also where I work there was a case recently where a girl was made redundant and it was subsequently revealed that she was pregnant; as a result she stayed on until the baby was born and then paid maternity leave for 6 months and then officially made redundant.


----------



## Purple (18 Mar 2010)

redchariot said:


> A friend of mine took maternity leave from her company knowing full well that she wouldn't be returning at the end; she justified it that she had worked there for eight years previous and she should be entitled to "something back".


 Did they not pay her each week/month?



redchariot said:


> Also where I work there was a case recently where a girl was made redundant and it was subsequently revealed that she was pregnant; as a result she stayed on until the baby was born and then paid maternity leave for 6 months and then officially made redundant.


 If the company was not aware that she was pregnant then it should not have been an issue.


----------



## redchariot (18 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> Did they not pay her each week/month?
> 
> If the company was not aware that she was pregnant then it should not have been an issue.



Don't get me wrong, I am not on the side of either of these girls even though one is my freind. I am just showing examples of what can happen.


----------



## Diziet (18 Mar 2010)

redchariot said:


> A friend of mine took maternity leave from her company knowing full well that she wouldn't be returning at the end; she justified it that she had worked there for eight years previous and she should be entitled to "something back".



So what should she do instead - resign and lose even the state maternity benefit? We don't even know if the company topped her pay up or not. 

She may of course have changed her mind and decided to stay in work after the baby was born - why should she limit her options? Maternity provisions are protected by legislation for a reason. I am surprised by the tone of some of the posts here. I have worked since I left college, had two children and in my experience the majority of my female colleagues are entirely professional. It is not inherently unethical to have a child, although you would think it was a crime against employers from the tone of some of the posts here.



> Also where I work there was a case recently where a girl was made redundant and it was subsequently revealed that she was pregnant; as a result she stayed on until the baby was born and then paid maternity leave for 6 months and then officially made redundant.



My understanding is that redundancy is activated after maternity leave is over, and with good reason. How easy is it to jobhunt when 8 months pregnant? Or with a young baby? Also, the legislation protects women from redundancy by reason of pregnancy. Again, with good reason.

I can understand that there will always be employees, male and female, who will take the mickey. However, I despair at the hostility of some of the posts here.


----------



## Mongola (20 Mar 2010)

minkydog said:


> I first went on maternity leave Sept 2006 had baby in november then on the day I was due back where was i ?? in hospital as I really sick expecting second baby. Went on sick leave then immediatly into maternity leave then took all the holidays due to me (tons by the way don't forget to add on the bank holidays) then  I took parental leave for both kids and then I gave in my notice. Basically I left in sept 2006 but stayed on the books and got bonuses etc until March 2009. So i think the naswer to your question is Yes but get all you can first !!!




That is what I call milking the system. This sounds like a really well thought out plan...maybe a bit too much in my opinion....


----------



## minion (20 Mar 2010)

Diziet said:


> ...............
> I can understand that there will always be employees, male and female, who will take the mickey. However, I despair at the hostility of some of the posts here.



Well said.


----------



## pepsi66 (20 Mar 2010)

public sector pay is deducted by the amount of maternity benefit paid by social welfare so it is wrong to assume that all public sector workers on maternity receive full pay...


----------



## ney001 (22 Mar 2010)

minkydog said:


> I first went on maternity leave Sept 2006 had baby in november then on the day I was due back where was i ?? in hospital as I really sick expecting second baby. Went on sick leave then immediatly into maternity leave then took all the holidays due to me (tons by the way don't forget to add on the bank holidays) then  I took parental leave for both kids and then I gave in my notice. Basically I left in sept 2006 but stayed on the books and got bonuses etc until March 2009. So i think the naswer to your question is Yes but get all you can first !!!



I suspect that it was this post that instigated the hostile replies! - understandable imo


----------

