Change to salary conditions while on maternity leave - now worse off!

[walmer3]

I'm currently on maternity leave. My employers pay a slightly enhanced package - 90% for first 6 weeks, 50% for next 14 weeks, the remainder is the statutory amount. However until now I also got a car allowance which, as it was a benefit, was paid in full for the duration of OML. I received a letter today stating that from now on, the car allowance is being absorbed into the total salary amount - so I'll only get 50% of the allowance (+ 50% of the salary, as usual) rather than 100%. I am quite sure this is a general change affecting all staff, as other offices within the group don't operate with car allowances -so I don't think they have thought this through in my individual case. However the net result is that I will be significantly worse off for the duration of my leave.
Can anyone advise my rights? Thanks in advance!

walmer3 I'm struggling a bit with this one I have to say! I'm not afraid to admit when I'm a little bit out of my depth!

It feels wrong. But if it's a general change affecting everyone, and what was previously a benefit has now become remuneration that's a bit tricky.

What I will ask is were you/the workforce as a whole consulted about this change to your terms and conditions? Because you do have that right, see here, your employer must consult with staff or their representatives, explain the proposed change and listen to and consider suggestions. I would expect that to be the time that your special situation was raised and addressed.

Has the consultation taken place? If so was your individual case discussed? If not, have you spoken to your manager or anyone in HR about this? You say you think they've just not thought it through in your case - if you draw it to their attention might they be horrified to realise you will be so out of pocket?

I can't see a legal case on this one I'm afraid (assuming you are correct that it affects everyone). Flowery is right though, I'd pitch for the emotional angle.

The problem is that, if an employer imposes a change in terms and conditions without consent, your real remedy is to claim constructive dismissal. As Flowery is always telling people on here, that's a very high risk claim...

Hi, I would like to say that an employee who takes OML is entitled to the benefit ot all the terms and conditions of employment which would have applied had she not been absent, whether or not they arise under her contract of employment. In other words, she is to be treated as if her contract of employment continues during OML. The only exception is that she is not entitled to terms and conditions realting to remuneration. Thus contractual and non-contractual benefits, other than sums which would have been payable by wages or salary, must be continued, eg life assurance, medical assurance, private use of a company car, mortgage subsidies etc.

Above taken from Selwyn's Law of Employment.

Speak to your employer and let them know that you will be worse off. Hope this helps.

Yes, Iam, but they have changed the pay structure so that the car allowance is no longer paid and it is all treated as salary (i.e. remuneration). They are not saying "we won't pay the benefit". They are saying "we have taken away the benefit and increased basic salary instead".

There are also a few complicated issues when the "benefit" is actually just a cash sum, because it can sometimes be argued that it is remuneration, although probably not relevant here...

thanks Ribena

Thank you so much for your quick input and very helpful suggestions, Flowery, Iam and Ribena. To answer your question, we were not consulted although it's not an industry/company that tends to do that kind of thing. And it's fairly widely known within our office that car allowances are a 'thing of the past' compared to the salary structure in other offices throughout the UK so it's not a very surprising decision.
My inclination is definitely to go in softly-softly on this one, just mentioning that I will be worse off and seeing whether they do anything.
However, if they don't do anything about it it will probably mean I will have to go back to work much, much earlier than I'd previously planned due to our financial situation. If this ends up being the case I wondered whether there would be an argument under sexual discrimination?

I just found this on www.berr.gov.uk:

^Key Facts
It is sex discrimination to treat a female worker or job applicant less favourably for a reason related to her pregnancy or maternity leave.

Such discrimination cannot be justified whether on grounds of cost, disruption to the business, or for any other reason.^

walmer if the action they've taken in the first place isn't discrimination I can't see that your decision for financial reasons to go back earlier as a result would alter that.

I'd stick with the approach you've planned and not assume it will need to get nasty at the moment.

Me too. As Flowery said, if the action isn't discrimination I am afraid that the knock-on consequences aren't either.

In the statement you quoted, the key part is "for a reason related to her pregnancy". They're not treating you this way because you're pregnant/on maternity leave. They're doing it because they're phasing out car allowances for everyone.

Sorry.

Thanks, I do take your points. Have dropped a casual email to the boss, fingers crossed it doesn't get nasty...

Just wanted to update you on the outcome of this. I had to bite my tongue and sit on my hands to be patient, because after an acknowledgement of my email from the boss I heard nothing for four weeks. However when they finally got back to me it was to say that they'd made a special case for me and are going to pay the car allowance as long as I am on maternity leave. Result! Thanks very much to those who assisted with my original post, you definitely stopped me from going in all-guns-blazing - which undoubtedly helped me get a better outcome.