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?

We can certainly add this thread to the No, Feminism Is Not Obsolete list.

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.

She works from home. She's not going to do something physical. I work from home; we may have drastically different jobs but the reality is likely to be that she's on a computer in a warm office, with the baby a few feet away, not that she's out building pyramids.

There are lots of weird views here

I know debating shared leave wasn't 6the point but all the old arguments - the woman need time to recover, what about breastfeeding etc, but men are higher earners etc, are mad.

Yes they do need time to recover. But theres 12 months to share. The vast vast majority of women will have recovered in 6 months. And the vast vast majority of women are not breastfeeding then.

I EBF and split 10 months / 2 months and my best friend EBF and split did 9 months / 3 months.

School leavers and graduates usually have equal pay or women earning more. Its after kids that the pay gap really widens because guess what, looking after kids is womens work. It simply isn't the case that in most marriages the man earns so much more than the woman that they couldn't cope on her salary (as opposed to his) for a few months. I know countless couples who earn similar (eg met at work) or the woman out earns the man, it's hardly unusual

Sorry shouldn't have said weird views. Illogical views, to my mind

Meringue You have quoted me. I am not against shared leave at all. I was questioning the wisdom of shared 3 months for the women, 9 months for the man before the baby is here. No most women are still not breastfeeding at 3 months, but if you want to, it does need to be part of the equation.

Not many people on this thread seem to know what shared parental leave is and it's pretty depressing the number of people saying father's don't need time with their newborn babies. Luckily the people who make the law think they do and have put that right into statute.

OP - there certainly are jobs advertised saying no leave at certain periods, even in the first 6m though that is rare as you'd have to take all annual leave in the other 6m and most employers would not want that - but in this case it is very clear that they have said this to prevent him taking his statutory right and good on you and him for following it up! Men should simply not be made to feel that this right is less important than maternity leave is.

Also the 3 months for the woman would usually include some time before actually giving birth. So more likely 2 or 2.5 months post birth for the woman. That is too soon for many women due to the actual birth and healing.

vangogh I haven't seen anyone saying fathers don't need time with their own babies.

Firstly OP congratulations - this must be wonderful for your husband after so long wanting a child

There is just one thing that concerns me. It seems this job was "manufactured" by the organisation just for him, rather than fairly advertised as a role available to everyone. They may get complaints about that as its a public organisation but thats not your concern.

It does however seem bizarre to go through these motions when they KNEW he was going on shared Pat leave in August. Was it a way of trying to circumvent that previously agreed leave to try and stop it ?

Im just thinking out loud really. You defo need legal advice. However I would say that asserting ones rights via grievance and legal proceedings is mega mega stressful. It takes over your whole life and goes on forever. Im just thinking it could spoil this wonderful time you both have xx

Thanks for the congrats :-) Found out the job wasn't created for DH, it was a post advertised in March that they couldn't recruit into. (We didn't see it at the time)

Yes, as densol says, it shouldn’t be the case but pursuing this will impact on what should be a lovely time for you both and possibly his future career
I realise that the employer may have acted badly but it is hard to see how your DH would fulfil a new role if he took 6 months off. Does your DH really need to take so much time off? It would be lovely for him I’m sure but sometimes these things aren’t practical

This situation would never arise with a female employee, as it would be obvious they were pregnant by 7.5 months, and everyone would assume they would take several months off. Therefore an employer wouldn't get themselves into this situation.
I also doubt most female employees would be applying for a new job at this time. For a start they would be huge, tired, having to go to loads of appointments, probably distracted by thoughts of upcoming labour etc.
The right to spl is dependent on having been in the role since before the pregnancy started - they can't discriminate if you would have had promotion anyway but I don't see why they should create a new role specially for someone who's then going off for 6 months.
Apart from that it isn't fair on the employer to take advantage of rules designed to support family life.
There has to be some common sense in these situations as well - it's quite possible that the employer thought it worth asking in case the op's husband would have been willing to delay the spl till after the first 6 months in the new role. It's fine if he doesn't want to but I don't see how them broaching the subject is a bad thing.

Oh OP, how this goes is your DH may or may not get the role handed to him, he goes on leave, comes back.

From then on in his life at work will be utterly unbearable. Everything he does will be scrutinised and picked apart. Every mistake he makes will be documented until he’s sacked (following employment law to the letter).

Be very careful what you wish for and think about the long term before you raise any grievances.

The point here is not whether or not the company will be pissed off - the point is that it is illegal to say people can't go on shared parental leave! Honestly. Asking HR how to get around SPL is appalling behaviour and HR shouldn't have provided said advice - they should have said you cannot get around SPL, don't be dicks. And their advice was wrong anyway because the company cannot decline SPL on the grounds of business need - how would that work for women, no you can't go on mat leave because the business needs you here? Yes I can see that you're 8.5 months pregnant but tough, have the baby under the desk and stay put, please. Business need does not trump legislation on parental leave.

I am genuinely appalled at attitudes to maternity and paternity leave on this thread and on MN in general.

” it isn't fair on the employer to take advantage of rules designed to support family life.”

Yes quite. Parents should definitely take as little time off as possible, rush back to work full time within a month and not even think of asking to work part time or take the day off when their child is ill, or take advantage of rules designed to support family life.

Good grief.

This is still a parenting website, yes?

OP, the employer hasn't covered themselves in glory here but I agree with what @thisismeusernameything says. It is clear that your DH is held in high regard and hopefully there will be more opportunities. If you pursue this as a formal grievance, it will sour workplace relationships and those opportunities may not be available in the future as he will have a reputation for being "difficult".

I see your DH wants to be off from birth until 6 months. Would he be willing to take time off when the baby is 6-12 months instead? I know he shouldn't have to change plans but this way he still gets to be hands on while being able to move into the new role.

I do appreciate all the views put forward. DH is not wanting to make life hard for himself but surely this is how discrimination grows, by people staying quiet for an easy life?

When the job was advertised in March the advert said nothing about needing six months in post without leave. This condition has clearly been put in place to prevent SPL being taken. Its the principle that matters here now, not the job itself. What is unfair is that the organisation hasn't followed the law in that nobody can be treated detrimentally due to SPL.

YANBU.

I'd have loved to see them say the same thing to a pregnant woman.

You can have this job but only if you cross your legs for 6 months and keep the baby in or better still just abort it!

Awful on the part of the company. The whole process sucks. They need to a) readvertise the role b) consider all candidates fairly c) not decide to not take the best candidate because of parental leave.

OP yes it is how discrimination grows. I am talking from experience here. Your DH will probably suffer if he pursues this as a discrimination case. You can pursue it, just be aware that it will have personal consequences.

OP just point of accuracy, they did not offer the job advertised to him, they created a job for him. So they can say it is only for 6 months. What was in the advert is irrelevant.

Also to those saying they would not do this with a pregnant woman, pregnant woman are discriminated against in employment all the time. Google industrial tribunal cases and pregnancy, it is not unusual. And yes lots of women also do not pursue their discrimination cases.

So disappointed by the sexism on this thread.

To suffer a detriment for asking to take shared parental leave, the main cause of the detriment must be your decision to ask to take spl. That’s not what happened here. In crude terms, your DH didn’t say ‘I’d like to take spl’ whereupon the employer retaliated by saying, ‘in that case you can’t have this job’. I suspect acas may be wrong and you won’t be able to establish that one caused the other. But could be wrong obviously!

It’s not pregnancy or maternity discrimination because he is not pregnant or asking to take etc maternity leave.

There is no such thing as ‘shared parental leave discrimination’.

So that leaves sex discrimination - maybe his best bet. Directly discriminatory if a woman in the same position would have been treated better.

Honestly I think your making a huge mistake taking out a grievance against your dhs boss for something like this. If he fails ( and it well could) he's never progress again. Even if it upheld , what will it do to his relationship with his boss who sounds like he stuck his neck out for him a bit. In your shoes I'd ask to start the job after my return from leave.

Really poor advice on this thread. Speak to ACAS. He has suffered a detriment because of SPL, which is pregnancy & Otherwise he would have a new promotion with more money.

I'd have loved to see them say the same thing to a pregnant woman.

You can have this job but only if you cross your legs for 6 months and keep the baby in or better still just abort it!

I agree with this. Double standards.