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?

@BollocksToBrexit I don't know what you mean. The baby is formed in the mother, and it knows nothing other than its mother. I don't see how that is outdated...

The baby is formed in the mother, and it knows nothing other than its mother.

Then it exits the womb. And gets to know other people. OP will literally still be in the house when she's working and there every morning/evening. A baby will come to absolutely no harm or distress by being cared for by its father for 40-odd hours a week from 6 months old.

Nothing to add but jesus christ this thread is depressing.

There's no way I would apply for a new job if I were about to go on 6 months mat leave.

That might just be me though...

@handbaghoarderr my father was the SAHP while my mother worked. I was fine. My own children didn’t seem to give a shit who was caring for them until about six months. Even then they weren’t that fussed. My younger child was convinced and brunette was an adequate mummy replacement (he used to demand breast milk from strangers who looked a bit like me ) until the age of two when he stopped breastfeeding and therefore stopped caring who was taking care of him.

@SoHotADragonRetired I must have missed that OP would be there.

How can a promotion be offered to an employee who has demonstrated that his loyalty is to his family, not his employers

What a fucking ridiculous statement. EVERYONE's loyalty should be to their family, not their employer.

We are not cogs in some capitalist wheel, solely on the planet to make money for industry. It's attitudes like yours that bring misery, depression, burn-out and downright fucked priorities to every worker, allowing companies to endlessly take the piss.

As an employer I value the employee who wants a decent work-life balance, not some sucker who's stuck in the 1980s 'work til you drop' culture.

Actually agog at some of the stuff in this thread. Just woke up from a nap and it seems I have awoken in 1953 No wonder so many men are apparently incapable of parenting their own children.

@flowery the OP said she wanted her husband to deceive his employer. That is bad character. His telling his employer that he was unwilling to sacrifice the parental leave to take the promotion is absolutely fine. But his employer was upfront about what they needed. If heliedandsaid he could do the job but then changed his mind after they had given it to him that would have been a horrible thing to do (the flip side would be the employer offering him the job without communicating the workload issues clashing with his scheduled leave and then demanding that he didn’t take the full leave/postponed it once he had taken the job). It’s basic decency not to accept responsibilities you don’t intend to fulfil.

aprilanne
I am all for men doing there bit but as I always say to my daughter's in law you do all the hard work before the birth why the heck shouldn't you have all the mat leave

Not the point of the thread but apart from this just generally being ridiculous, I found maternity leave way harder than being at work.

I am very pro shared parental leave. I know some people who have done it and it's really worked for them. We were going to but in the end he just wouldn't take a bottle so I carried on being at home. The point is that there's a choice, different arrangements work for different people.

I agree with Flowery. I see it as trying to prevent him to assert his statutory right to take shared parental leave. Some attitudes on this post are downright depressing

"The OP said she wanted her husband to deceive his employer. That is bad character"

The OP said that after the employer had told her DH that they planned to treat his less favourably and withdraw the promotion if he intended to exercise his right to statutory shared parental leave. I agree deception isn't good, but unlawful treatment by an employer is worse.

"It’s basic decency not to accept responsibilities you don’t intend to fulfil."

Presumably you would advise any woman planning to start a family that she shouldn't take a promotion, start a new project at work, start any new job or in fact do anything, knowing that she plans at some point shortly to 'not fulfil' those responsibilities?

SoHotADragon I am old, It used to be 3 months maternity leave here, but few women went back to work when their babies were 3 months old. Lots of women have not actually recovered from the birth at that point, and putting a 3 month old baby into full time childcare is a choice few choose.
In the US there is no right to paid maternity leave at all. The US also has a high rate of maternal death after the baby has been born.
Yes some women can be fine to go back to work full time at 3 months, but no way should this be a given.
I think sometimes couples make plans pre birth without understanding the realities of birth and breastfeeding for some women.

Some very depressing attitudes here. I'm back at work, came back when baby was 7 months. DH is caring for her - he's not officially on parental leave because he's self employed but if he'd still been in hos old role, too right he'd be taking parental leave. I'm fully recovered now and I'm the higher earner, for us this way round works.

I don't think women should be forced to give up leave but if a couple want to split it good for them. The more men do this, the less women will be held back in the workplace because the risk of a long baby related leave won't exclusively apply to women.

His employer should not have done this, and they are discriminating. Becoming a parent and taking the legal leave associated with it should not be a cause for holding someone's career back whether male or female.

But then I had no qualms about applying for promotion while on leave.

I'm not arguing that no one should ever get more than 3 months. I think the USA's situation wrt paid parental leave is pathetic and a scandal. (Although more of them breastfeed than Brits, so we can't justify a year off as being so crucial to breastfeeding.) I'm pointing out that getting all up in the face of a woman who has taken six months' leave and has opted to allow her DH to take the other six "why are you going back so soon (you unmaternal hag)" is sexist and unhelpful as hell.

Hi OP, as mentioned already this isn't technically a form of discrimination in employment law (as unlawful discrimination is only on the grounds of protected characterisics), but a separate matter, whereby an employee (broadly) has the right not to be subjected to a detriment for something related to the taking of shared parental leave. Section 47(C) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is the relevant legislation.

Your husband should take proper legal advice before pursuing anything however, as there would likely be potential pitfalls - for example it is not clear from your post that the employer made the new post contingent on your husband cancelling his leave, as opposed to him just taking the decision by himself not to take the role. It may also be debatable whether not proceeding with a potential new role is a 'detriment', compared to (for example) withdrawing a firm offer. Either way, your husband may not want to rock the boat if he is otherwise happy in his workplace . But he really shouldn't proceed with anything without proper legal advice at what is often a financially precarious time for families.

I'm shocked at some of the opinions on this thread. The motherhood penalty in terms of women's earnings is real. Also, the discrimination experienced by many women of childbearing age is real, in respect of roles offered /not offered because of the 'risk' of pregnancy and maternity. Shared parental leave is far from perfect, and it should be improved on and alternatives pursued, however mocking or scorning men and women who choose this path is terrible. Men can look after small children. And if men are seen less as a safe bet in terms of needing to take leave following the birth of a child, this will hopefully manifest itself in better family friendly policies for men AND women - ie if men start suffering the loss of roles, and financial penalties that women have historically suffered, they are likely to.be more motivated towards improving things.

Your DH applied for a promotion for a job that already existed and didn't get it. (Had he been offered the position then told he could only work it if he didn't take parental leave- that's discrimmination)

Your DH was told they were creating a (brand spanking new) job position soley just for him with no one else in mind, and that they wanted him to start immediately with no parental leave- I do not believe that's discrimmination. (Because it technically doesn't exist yet)

Your DH declined the non-existing, soon to be brand new job position designed only for him, because he wants to be with his baby. If he is upset by this, it's for him to take further but from the sounds of your post he's not to fussed.

Whether this is discrimmination or not, any action taken against the company will back fire on your DH in some way. It's horrible but not many people continue working in harmony at a work place they've put issues in against. It's very unfair but very real.

They think he's a fantastic worker, I'm sure they'll be other promotions available when he returns back to work.

Also I think it's fantastic he wants to stay at home and congrats on your miracle baby!

”Your DH was told they were creating a (brand spanking new) job position soley just for him with no one else in mind, and that they wanted him to start immediately with no parental leave- I do not believe that's discrimination”

Presumably you’d say the same to a woman who was offered a promotion- that she should turn it down if she intends to get pregnant or is pregnant? And you would think it fine for an employer to make a promotion conditional upon not taking more than two weeks maternity leave?

Thanks for the (helpful) contributions. Without wanting to drip feed, DH is home and has updated me as to exactly what happened.

Bosses rang him Friday and asked him to come in today for a discussion (Same company as he already works for, bosses already known to him as they work on a different but aligned team)

When he got there, he was informed that he'd been unsuccessful but that there was another vacant position they'd like to interview him for (during the meeting, no advance notice given of this 'interview' he thought it was an informal chat/discussion.)

He was told he'd be asked five questions tailored to him, and then offered the job, as they were already aware of his capabilities etc. BUT, in order to go forward with the interview, he had to agree to the following condition, which was that in the first six months, he wouldn't be allowed to take any prolonged leave. So DH said no he couldn't go ahead, as he had shared parental leave planned. They asked him if he could change this. DH said no, it is his first and only child, and he wants to be a hands-on Dad and he'll never get this chance again.

DH speaks to his current manager who says he feels the employer is on dodgy ground, and asks DH to speak to HR. He does, and HR are already aware of the issue as the potential new boss (of new role) has already been in touch with HR last week for advice around how they 'get around' the shared parental leave request - as they already KNEW DH was planning on taking it. HR told new manager that they can say it is a 'business need' that the new employee doesn't take time off in first six months. They feel they are acted lawfully by stating the business need.

I have never personally seen a job advertised where it is stated just prior to interview that no leave can be taken in the first six months, therefore I feel this is unlawful, as other candidates wouldn't have been asked this I'm sure! Thus, discrimination.

Waiting to speak to Union but think we'll take out a grievance. We can see it from the organisation's point of view, but I still believe it is unfair, and a pregnant women who applied for a job cannot be discriminated against, so why should a father who wants to look after his child legally under SPL be discriminated against?

Agree with the point that being ambiguous is not as bad as breaking the law!

"HR told new manager that they can say it is a 'business need' that the new employee doesn't take time off in first six months. They feel they are acted lawfully by stating the business need."

Codswallop. There's no legal provision for that. It is unlawful to treat someone less favourably because they want to take statutory family leave, and there's nothing in the legislation that says 'except if there is a genuine business need'.

Hi OP

You need to get some legal advice (or do you know anyone that works in HR?)

I think if this was maternity leave then it would be discrimination. I dont know why pp are being so dismissive of legal rights - companies cant just pick and choose when to follow the law because it's sometimes inconvenient!

If it was maternity leave it would be discrimination (I think) as you've got to offer the same training and job as social opportunities as if you were in the workplace. If you dont and it's just because of anything maternity related then that is clear discrimination according to the law. If you're off for over 6 months though they can change your role as long as its broadly equivalent to what you had before and paid the same. So put you in another team.

But to me saying 'you can have this role if you dont take time off to look after your child' is broadly wrong unless it's something short term say a specific project abroad where they need someone on the ground to build something. If its broadly the same role in the same location and they are creating it for him then its different

I dont know if paternity

Jesus Christ, I can't believe some people's attitudes to paternity leave! Things that NO WAY would be said about a woman about to go on mat leave (I know it happens all the time of course with women, but no one would overtly say that you shouldn't give a job to a woman who would do it for two months then take maternity). Of course it's discrimination, and the law supports that.

A women by law cannot be discriminated against, but they are under the guise of many other justifications when it comes to maternity related issues at work. Anyhow, has he spoken to ACAS? I hate it when companies don't advertise jobs but create them for people, seems unfair on everyone else- against the point of the thread I know.

Just seen your update. I wonder if they'd have offered it to a female on the condition that they could confirm they were pregnant and wouldn't get pregnant in the next 3 months? Yes its ridiculous when you put it like that but that's kind of what they're doing to him! I think it's wrong, and I think it sounds like a roundabout way of just trying to get him to not take the leave by offering him more incentive to cancel it. Do you think this other job would have materialised if leave had never been mentioned?