Advice re resigning after maternity leave and paying money back

[DrinkingCocktailsInTheSunshine]

I've recently found out that I am pregnant again, despite currently being on maternity leave. My company has given me an enhanced pay but I won't be be returning to work now after my second lot of maternity leave ends (childcare costs don't make it feasible). I need to return to work for three months or else I have to pay back all of the enhanced pay. However, I will have three months of annual leave and bank holidays to take when I return. Will this count as being back at work so effectively mean I don't have to pay anything back whilst not actually physically returning to the office?

The company policy doesn't say whether the three months needs to be in the office or in paid employment, which is why I started this post. I don't know whether there is a legal guidance around this.

My notice period is one month and yes, I could work it. However, if I have to be in the office for all of my three months it doesn't help me.

No Cotswold. In fact, I won't be taking quite the full year off after my first one due to the small gap in between. The children will be in the same academic year - one will be one of the oldest and the other one of the youngest. After spending so long to conceive the first one, I didn't dream I would get pregnant again so quickly but am absolutely thrilled.

My annual leave from maternity definitely carries over if you have another maternity leave. It is only lost if you are at work and don't use it.

Ultimately I can go back to work for three months, even though childcare will cost more than I earn and basically be pretty much what the enchanted extra pay is, but this seems equally dishonest when my employer will be ending the contract of the person who is in to cover my job and who, by all accounts, is doing a good job and is popular. I might just email my HR department and ask them whether they are happy for me to use my annual leave or if they wish me to return and then find a replacement soon afterwards.

What do you think is morally wrong about the situation, NapQueen?

Morally wrong? Napqueen
Extraordinarily incorrect use of the phrase. Like adultery you mean?
Having children is a fact of life and appropriate and hard won consideration and accommodation should be made.

I just think it's morally wrong to accept money from an employer for more than two years without doing a single days work for them within that time.

Again as I said I know it is legal. I know the op is well within her rights, but the employer pays enhanced maternity leave and will be doing so for over 800 days without a single days work from the OP within that time.

Especially considering the OP has already decided that after these 800+ days she wot be returning and is seeking advice on how to do so without repaying the extra they've been giving her.

I think our companies have very different enhanced pay NapQueen. Mine gives me 100% for six weeks and then 50% for ten weeks. After that it is just SMP. Considering I will have worked for them for 20 years at the end of this year, I do feel I have shown my loyalty towards them.

I also feel that your comment that it is morally wrong to accept money from an employer without doing a single days' work applies to every parent who takes maternity/shared parental leave. You do realise this means that you consider a large percentage of the country to be morally wrong? I am certain there are a lot of people who disagree with your belief that effectively any women who is pregnant should resign from their job or else they would be morally wrong to stay and receive maternity pay.

You're talking complete cobblers napqueen. However you'll find plenty of places in the world which fulfil your moral imperative and provide women with very few rights. Look to the USA and I'm sure you'll be delighted to see how poor maternity rights are.

NapQueen employers who pay enhanced maternity pay can put whatever conditions they want on it. So if the OP's employer thought as you do, they could have said employees must return to work for 6 months, or 1 year, or even 5 years in order to keep the enhanced payment. They have chosen to set it at 3 months and it seems a bit odd to say the OP is immoral when she is complying with what her employers have decided is the right limit.

Also remember the annual leave she is using is annual leave she could have taken in the past but didn't. So yes she is not going to be working for the X accrued annual leave days but that means she has worked those X days in the past when she didn't have to.

I think in theory you won't have to pay back the enhanced maternity pay for your first child. I don't however believe you will be entitled to the enhanced part for your second maternity leave so may not be as much money as you think. Most places (including civil service) usually ask that you return for a year bufire you are entitled to enhanced pay.

@ "morally wrong".

An especially daft comment with the pay gap as it is.

I'm always amused at people trying to make the claim that MLs close together are somehow immoral in a way that spaced out ones aren't. It's just so utterly specious and pathetic. If anything, it's easier to cover in the situation OP mentions than it is if you go back in for a year or two inbetween!

(For the record, I haven't had more than one ML with any employer and have a rather larger gap than OP).

Most places (including civil service) usually ask that you return for a year bufire you are entitled to enhanced pay

Is that true? The NHS and councils I know of don't. You are still employed when you are on maternity leave, obviously you might get less if your enhanced pay is based on your pay while you're on mat leave but I came back to work 16 weeks pregnant so should get same amount of enhanced pay as previously.

Really lolling at the moral outrage of some posts here btw.

Silent - I can see where Nap is coming from. I fell pregnant again approx 4 months after returning to work. I felt terrible knowing that I was going to be leaving the team stretched when I went off again and I took my second mat leave almost a year after I'd returned. Were I to be taking mat leave for a second time without even doing a days work in between and with the knowledge I wasn't returning afterwards...well I would feel really shitty. Taking two mat leaves close together is not really the issue to me, it is that the OP is in effect stiffing the company for a perk which is aimed at retaining staff yet she does so with no ìntention to be retained.

I was discussing the compulsory return period with someone recently and we agreed we suspect it's in place as when women return they are often struggling with leaving their children and adjusting to working again. By the time they've been back a month or two they usually settle down again and are happy to remain. If no one had to work for a set period to keep the enhance pay then I think a large number of workers would never return at all because it's very daunting returning after mat leave so they could just avoid it altogether.

What's the alternative? A set period where you're not allowed to fall pregnant? Perhaps a demand that you return to work for 2 years at the end of your maternity leave? Life is complicated, there are many reasons why women don't return to work, some financial, some may be personal, but I would hazard a guess that most do return. Also falling pregnant isn't something you can plan precisely is it, I know of many couples who took a long time to conceive their first but fell pregnant with their second in no time at all.

I have worked for my employer for 8 years, I'm not sure I will return to work permanently after my next child due in May, (although I also have to return for at least 3 months) but I don't feel guilty, I do appreciate that maternity leave and packages are much better in this country than other places but I'm not going to grovel for it. It's an entitlement to ensure babies are raised well and will become future good citizens of society

I can't. You feeling really shitty in that scenario isn't evidence that it's a shitty thing to do. It's a completely illogical argument.

NapQueen is whining that OP, after 20 years service, is taking 800 days altogether without being paid. So yes, this is absolutely about 2 MLs close together: that's the precise thing she is objecting to. If OP had her first child a few years earlier, come back in the middle and was going to come back for the requisite number of days to avoid repayment after the second baby (ie 3 months less a lot of annual leave, so just a couple of weeks) she wouldn't be getting any more paid ML than she is by doing it this way. She would also quite likely be making it more difficult for her employer in terms of cover.

It's such a ridiculous thing to have to apologise or feel guilty for, having two babies in any kind of succession!!