Case study Maternity leave and employee benefits

[Parazard2]

I am a full-time employee with health insurance as part of my employment benefits. It turns out that my company's policy states that health benefit is not covered for any period of unpaid leave. I checked with hr and this includes maternity leave. It also appears that not only the company would not pay for the benefit should I extend my maternity to a period of unpaid leave, they are also saying they won't pay from when they take me off payroll (which will be during the 26 weeks of statutory leave as they don't top up my salary for the whole duration). Is this discriminatory?

 

[Itchy]

Discriminatory, unlikely. Crappy, yes.
First things first maybe sort out your PHI so you’re not left out in the cold when the time comes. They might allow you to pay off the remainder of your premium in a lump sum now and put arrangements in place for continuity when you are off e.g. they could take an amount for the premium and pay it for you at renewal time.

From what you said they seem to be meeting their obligations legally. I assume it’s a small company you work for? It’s a tricky area for small business and I’m sure they would love to do more but it’s a significant outlay particularly given current circumstances.

However, if it’s not the above and it’s a healthy business or it’s a business that touts any sort of social credentials/“gender balance” or has published a policy/advertised using the words “diversity” or “inclusion” in it then it’s free fire in my opinion because it’s disgraceful.

In reality you don’t want to go down the discrimination route, it’ll be unpleasant for everyone. You would have to establish if they have a different policy for other types of unpaid leave? Do they pay paternity leave at full pay for example? Even then you’d have to go through a rigmarole that you don’t want.

But on the plus side you you have no obligation to your employer once you’re off the payroll. Do yourself a favour and look for something more suitable for your circumstances.

 

[Parazard2]

Discriminatory, unlikely. Crappy, yes.
First things first maybe sort out your PHI so you’re not left out in the cold when the time comes. They might allow you to pay off the remainder of your premium in a lump sum now and put arrangements in place for continuity when you are off e.g. they could take an amount for the premium and pay it for you at renewal time.

From what you said they seem to be meeting their obligations legally. I assume it’s a small company you work for? It’s a tricky area for small business and I’m sure they would love to do more but it’s a significant outlay particularly given current circumstances.

However, if it’s not the above and it’s a healthy business or it’s a business that touts any sort of social credentials/“gender balance” or has published a policy/advertised using the words “diversity” or “inclusion” in it then it’s free fire in my opinion because it’s disgraceful.

In reality you don’t want to go down the discrimination route, it’ll be unpleasant for everyone. You would have to establish if they have a different policy for other types of unpaid leave? Do they pay paternity leave at full pay for example? Even then you’d have to go through a rigmarole that you don’t want.

But on the plus side you you have no obligation to your employer once you’re off the payroll. Do yourself a favour and look for something more suitable for your circumstances.

I was thinking discriminatory because it doesn't just affect meternity leave, it puts anyone who is likely to need to take a period of unpaid leave at a disadvantage. This is most likely to be parental or carter's leave, therefore someone who has dependants (and let's be honest most likely is a woman). Would that not swing?

They will allow me to pay out of my own pocket during unpaid leave (isn't it great? More outgoings with no income = less likely to be able to afford unpaid time off).

 

[Leo]

I was thinking discriminatory because it doesn't just affect meternity leave, it puts anyone who is likely to need to take a period of unpaid leave at a disadvantage.

If it affects everyone on unpaid leave then it's not discriminating against any specific group. As Itchy says, providing cover for unpaid leave is disproportionately expensive for small companies, so many will not provide generous benefits while getting nothing in return. Larger companies can take a longer term view of it and continue to pay for such benefits.

 

[misemoi]

I was surprised that my company halved my bonus during ML, but by all accounts this is allowed. Also I have worked in places where they stopped ER pension contributions during periods of unpaid leave, but facilitated employees continuing to pay EE contribution.

 

[Parazard2]

If it affects everyone on unpaid leave then it's not discriminating against any specific group. As Itchy says, providing cover for unpaid leave is disproportionately expensive for small companies, so many will not provide generous benefits while getting nothing in return. Larger companies can take a longer term view of it and continue to pay for such benefits.

Well who is going to be availing of unpaid leave? Parents really isn't it? So could it not be seen as unfairly penalizing people on grounds of family status?

 

[Itchy]

I was surprised that my company halved my bonus during ML, but by all accounts this is allowed.

This is not clear. The issue of remuneration and ML is complicated. ML basically entitles you to all the employee rights except remuneration. In relation to your bonus, your company could be on shaky ground here. If your bonus is calculated on a strict policy of company attainment and individual attainment, say 50/50, then you would be entitled to the company attainment portion. In addition, you may have been present for a portion of the year that would entitle you to a portion of your individual entitlement.
If your bonus policy is wishy-washy (industry verbiage!) i.e. you have a target percentage and it gets awarded on the basis of some general criteria, then the company cannot arbitrarily just give you 50% of your bonus. In this scenario, case law would lean towards an award that’s looks something like the average of your previous years award.

Bottom line is that it’s complicated. It’s a sensitive area as particularly for small business, it’s necessary to strike a balance for them. For the most part, no one is out to discriminate against anybody but the playing isn’t level. Unless you have a written policy (and even you do) you should make your case to your employer to improve the T and Cs. If they can’t do anything, then you should provide your services to another employer. It’s not ideal but it’s just real-politic. As I said above, hold your company to account for their diversity and inclusion/gender balance policies.

Ideally the state should cover 100% of salary and remove the disparity between small business/large business and state employees.

 

[Itchy]

Well who is going to be availing of unpaid leave? Parents really isn't it? So could it not be seen as unfairly penalizing people on grounds of family status?

Unpaid leave is a benefit for parents. You’re complaining that this benefit is not good enough and should be paid?

I think you need to change your mindset. No one is out to screw you.

 

[Leo]

Well who is going to be availing of unpaid leave? Parents really isn't it? So could it not be seen as unfairly penalizing people on grounds of family status?

That doesn't really make sense. It could not be considered discriminatory not to pay an optional benefit to someone who is not being paid! I presume there is no one there putting a gun to your head forcing you to take unpaid leave?

But aside from that, I know lots of people who took unpaid leave to go travelling.

 

[Parazard2]

That doesn't really make sense. It could not be considered discriminatory not to pay an optional benefit to someone who is not being paid! I presume there is no one there putting a gun to your head forcing you to take unpaid leave?

But aside from that, I know lots of people who took unpaid leave to go travelling.

I disagree you might have no choice but take unpaid leave to care for someone, or you might be very sick. Very different from going on a lifetime trip. There should be a distinction made?

 

[Smoneen]

If your employer is paying for health insurance for you as part of your overall package I presume you are then paying BIK on the benefit. If you are going on unpaid leave how would BIK be charged? I assume this is one of the reasons why your employer can’t facilitate payment of the benefit for staff taking unpaid leave. I presume they also don’t operate a facility for staff paying the LPT (Local Property Tax) via salary deduction in similar circumstances also. I don’t think your employer is being unreasonable here. If you’re not receiving an income to offset a deduction in relation to taxable benefit what else can they do?

 

[Leo]

I disagree you might have no choice but take unpaid leave to care for someone, or you might be very sick. Very different from going on a lifetime trip. There should be a distinction made?

You're confusing multiple issues here. There is no entitlement to unpaid time off to care for someone outside of the 3 days permitted in qualifying force-majeure circumstances. Like extended maternity leave, where employers offer enhanced benefits to employees and allow this, it would be unfair to penalise them further by requiring them to pay other benefits.

 

[Parazard2]

Unpaid leave is a benefit for parents. You’re complaining that this benefit is not good enough and should be paid?

I think you need to change your mindset. No one is out to screw you.

No, work conditions should not put someone at a disadvantage due to their family status. Making one of these benefits (I. E. Paid health insurance) unavailable to individuals who may need to take unpaid parental leave or carer's leave or maternity leave is indirectly discriminating against individuals with dependants.

 

[Parazard2]

You're confusing multiple issues here. There is no entitlement to unpaid time off to care for someone outside of the 3 days permitted in qualifying force-majeure circumstances. Like extended maternity leave, where employers offer enhanced benefits to employees and allow this, it would be unfair to penalise them further by requiring them to pay other benefits.

Wow talk about bias coming out! So employees going on parental or maternity leave is a nuisance and penalty for employers. That is what this is really about isn't it? Never mind what asset these individuals are and what they bring to the company.

 

[Leo]

Wow talk about bias coming out!

What bias?

So employees going on parental or maternity leave is a nuisance and penalty for employers.

Of course it is. If the employer could do without them for extended periods, then wouldn't it be better for the employer if they just let them go and saved themselves the cost?

That is what this is really about isn't it? Never mind what asset these individuals are and what they bring to the company.

What kind of asset can someone on unpaid leave be to a company for the duration of that leave? In most cases the company will have take on more expensive temp staff to fill the role.

Or do you think someone who takes extended unpaid leave is somehow a better employee than someone who hasn't?

 

[Purple]

No, work conditions should not put someone at a disadvantage due to their family status. Making one of these benefits (I. E. Paid health insurance) unavailable to individuals who may need to take unpaid parental leave or carer's leave or maternity leave is indirectly discriminating against individuals with dependants.

Why on earth should an employer have to compensate one employee more due to their family circumstances? If someone with no children wants a month off to travel they will take it unpaid. If someone else wants that month off to mind their kids why should the employer have to pay for it?
If there is a social responsibility to help or support people with dependants then it is up to the State to shoulder it, not an employer. The employers contribution is to make sure it pays its taxes and complies with employment law.

 

[Thirsty]

So employees going on parental or maternity leave is a nuisance and penalty for employers.

That is pretty much the attitude; perhaps I'm just getting old and cynical, but don't expect it to improve once your baby is born.

If the employer could do without them for extended periods, then wouldn't it be better for the employer if they just let them go and saved themselves the cost?

Cases brought to the WRC every single year where employers attempted to do just that - and that's only the cases we know about.


To answer your question, if your employer pays the Health Ince benefit for other employees on non-maternity related unpaid leave, but not for maternity related unpaid leave, then yes it is discriminatory.

If however they have a blanket policy of no Health Insurance while on any unpaid leave, then you don't have a claim.

It would be worth your while to double check what the policy is if you are on long-term sick leave (Heaven forbid). Not having health insurance while being seriously ill would be very disturbing.

 

[Purple]

So employees going on parental or maternity leave is a nuisance and penalty for employers.

Of course it is. How could it be anything else? Employees going on holidays is a nuisance. Anything that takes them away from doing their job is a nuisance. That doesn't mean employers don't accept that their employees should get holidays and time off. It doesn't mean that they aren't concerned for their employees at a human level but it's still a nuisance.

 

[Leo]

Cases brought to the WRC every single year where employers attempted to do just that - and that's only the cases we know about.

Perhaps worded poorly, but I meant if they could do without staff for an extended period, they'd just let them go permanently without replacement. Replacement of course would suggest the business would suffer without them.