'Light-touch' additional paternity leave regulations raise issues for employers
The new additional paternity leave regulations apply for children born (or adopted) after 3 April 2011. Fathers now have the right to take up to 26 weeks of additional paternity leave (APL). This can be taken from 20 weeks following the baby's birth up until its first birthday. While this may be good news for would-be parents, it is likely to be problematic to employers.
July 20, 2011 at 07:03 PM
4 minute read
Norton Rose's Paul Griffin on why the low uptake of new paternity rules has left many questions unanswered
The new additional paternity leave regulations apply for children born (or adopted) after 3 April 2011. Fathers now have the right to take up to 26 weeks of additional paternity leave (APL). This can be taken from 20 weeks following the baby's birth up until its first birthday. While this may be good news for would-be parents, it is likely to be problematic to employers.
To qualify, a father must have been in continuous employment for at least 26 weeks by the end of the 15th week before the week the baby is due. In addition, the mother must have returned to work and have some of her entitlement to statutory maternity leave and pay still available. This may create difficulties as, in most cases, the parents don't work for the same employer. Can an employer realistically ensure that the mother has returned to work, particularly if she is self-employed?
The Government has aimed for a 'light-touch' approach and the administration of the scheme relies primarily on self-certification by parents. However, the regulations do take some active steps. They require the father to give at least eight weeks' notice to the employer of his intention to take APL, and both the mother and the father must provide separate signed declarations, including information such as the child's birth date and the status of the parents' relationship.
The employer may also request further information from the father, such as details of the mother's employer or a copy of the birth certificate. This information will be used to calculate the amount of leave and statutory pay to which the father is entitled. But what happens if the father is unable or unwilling to provide the information (eg, following a conflict with the mother)? There are no enforcement provisions to rely on, and employers may find themselves having to depend solely on the father's declaration.
Another tricky issue for employers concerns the continuation of benefits and rights to any enhanced payment that a woman on additional maternity leave might receive. Fathers currently have the right to all the usual terms and conditions of their employment except salary, which is replaced by statutory paternity pay. A father will receive this amount even if the mother was entitled to enhanced contractual pay. This raises a difficult question. Should the father be equally entitled to this enhanced pay, as well as other benefits (eg, return to work bonuses)? Failure to provide such benefits may arguably be discriminatory on grounds of sex.
The Equality Act 2010 provides an exemption in sex discrimination claims for "special treatment" afforded to women to protect the biological condition of new mothers and the relationship with the child following birth. Any benefits aimed at, for example, child care or encouraging a parent to return to work would not appear to fall within this exemption. Arguably, therefore, such benefits should be given to the father as well as the mother. Recent European Court of Justice (ECJ) decisions have given weight to this argument, although currently nothing is certain.
A further matter to consider is holiday entitlement. Holiday leave will continue to accrue while on APL. What is unclear is when holiday can be taken. The ECJ has ruled that holidays cannot be taken during maternity leave in order to protect the woman's health and relationship with the child following the birth. Again, these considerations clearly don't apply to fathers, who should arguably be able to take holiday and APL together.
The full impact of the regulations is difficult to gauge as the level of uptake remains unclear. While employers are dealing with these issues, the Government has already proposed a further change to the APL regime in the form of the Coalition-proposed 'shared flexible parental leave' scheme. The aim is for this to come into force in 2015.
Paul Griffin (pictured) is head of employment and labour at Norton Rose in London.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute read'Never Been More Dynamic': US Law Firm Leaders Reflect on 2024 and Expectations Next Year
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250