To think this is employment discrimination (shared parental leave)

[Suckasponge]

DH applied for a job last week. Was pipped at the post by another candidate but they were really impressed by his application, interview and what they know of his work (it was an internal role.)

Manager of the team asked for a meeting, which happened today. They said they have pulled strings and want to offer him a slightly different role at the same level as the one he applied for. They have said that the first six months in post are important.

DH already has a shared parental leave application in, which was approved by the organisation for six months off work to care for our baby, due in August. DH would be having August - Feb 2020 off.

In the meeting, the bosses have said they will only offer him this role if he can start immediately. The role hasn't been advertised and seems to have been created just for him. DH declined the role as he is very committed to having the parental leave, even though he would really like to take the move forward and accept.

I have told DH I think he should have sat on the fence and said 'well its all negotiable' until he had a formal job offer, and then said 'actually no, I've changed my mind and want the leave' as I'm pretty sure maternity/paternity leave carries equal(ish?) rights and I thought it was illegal to rescind a job offer due to pregnancy or related leave. DH wanted to be upfront from the beginning, which I respect, but I think it has enabled them to be quite underhand.

I could be completely wrong, do we have any grounds here?

Is it an internal role? Does he work there already?

@dementedpixie yes it was an internal role but with another team.

Would the new role have prevented your DH from taking paternity leave? As I understand from your post if he had started the new role he would be in post for 2 months then on paternity leave.

Was the role offer recinded or did he decline? In your post you say he declined.

Yes he'd be in post for about two months and then off on paternity leave. They said the job is yours only if you don't take the paternity leave, so DH declined.

Obviously there are legalities that I know nothing about. However, as an actual working person, what a total pain in the arse to appoint someone to do a job that needs doing, only for them to disappear for 6 months after 8 weeks. It would appear to me that he was not in a position to take the job after all, so probably just as well.

Maybe speak to ACAS?

Why would they ecruit someone who then is going to piss off for six months? They need someone to do a job, and he is not able to offer that.

OP has to cut her maternity leave short to give it to her DH so he can have time off. Maybe OP wants to go back much sooner, nothing to do with being namby pamby. What a horrible attitude

Erm, if this was maternity leave would you have the same opinions?

I've got children from a previous marriage. We had IVF as DH was infertile for 20 years. By a miracle, we actually got pregnant on the first round after icsi and sperm retrieval. So DH wants to cherish this baby and be around for the first few months, as this will be our first and last DC due to our ages.

Does that make more sense?

Erm, if this was maternity leave would you have the same opinions?

Yes. There is a difference between expecting your job to be kept open for your right to take parental leave, but it's another to knowingly apply for a new position that you will then be taking leave from. I think there is a distinction.

Ignore @Lemonlady22. She probably agreed with Piers Morgan when he said that a man wearing a baby in a sling was emasculating.

Whatever anyone’s opinion is on whether it’s a reasonable thing for your husband to do you actually need proper advice from a qualified HR person as to whether it would be classed as discrimination or not.
Is he in a Union? Could you access an employment solicitor?
You need proper advice not opinions from strangers on here

It is only discrimination if he was told he could not have the job because he was going to take what he was legally entitled to take.
He had negotiated 6 months off in his current employment. That is a private agreement, not something he is legally entitled to. So no other employer has to honour this.
Its equivalent is if you had negotiated with an employer coming in late every day so you could drop your kids off at school. If you said to a potential new employer that you would only take their job if you could start late so you can drop the kids off, they can legally say no.

Spoke to ACAS, they said it is unlawful under Employment Rights Act for a person, male or female to be treated detrimentally due to current or impending maternity or paternity leave. So we will follow this up accordingly.

@jennymanara sorry it is the SAME company. Moving from one role to another. Shared parental leave IS a legal entitlement.

Ignore @Lemonlady22. She probably agreed with Piers Morgan when he said that a man wearing a baby in a sling was emasculating.

It doesn't sound like the employer has rescinded the offer though? Your DH realised he may not be able to take full leave and he acted accordingly. Doesn't seem like employer stated he would not be able to take it either but he would possibly have not been entitled to it if he was starting a new role. I'm struggling to see how the employer is at fault?

You hadn't said it was the same company. That legally makes a massive difference.

Hmmm just spotted your update seems they did make it a condition of the post, was that their exact wording?

Well it seems like he did the right thing. He wants to be at the company, so rather than dump them so quickly and go off he declined it. Is he that bothered by it as you are?

Why does he need it? You need it__ OP, as you need to recover and look after baby. He, on the other hand, won't need to recover. It's all down to the mother in the first few weeks, as there is nothing the father can really do, as he is not anatomically capable. Not being goady, but the father can't really exercise many duties, because he doesn't have milk, and the mother also needs it to recover from the birth. It's biologically impossible for him to do certain things. Although, I suppose he should have a few days off to help you to keep everything going. Please don't take offence, I'm just trying to give you perspective. Congratulations on your pregnancy OP!

What about deferring the leave a bit so you have some time alone, some all together and some for him when you rtw?

But your husband did the right thing. So did his employer. They were both open and upfront. Neither tried to manipulate the situation or force the other party into a bad bargain. If your husband did what you wanted that would have been disastrous. Not only would it be bad for his employer who would be left in the lurch, it would also have tarnished your husband’s reputation and probably put his employer on alert to get rid of him at the first opportunity. If a similar situation comes up in future do yourselves a favour and act as your husband has acted. Long term success relies on good character.