Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 14 Mar 1989

Vol. 388 No. 3

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Maternity Protection of Employees Act.

17.

asked the Minister for Labour if his attention has been drawn to the claims made by the Free Legal Aid Centres that women workers are being denied the right to return to work after maternity leave by some employers, because of the over-complexity of the Maternity Protection of Employees Act, 1981; if he intends to simplify the procedures; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The Maternity Protection of Employees Act, 1981, provides a general right to return to work after maternity leave. That right is subject to the employee notifying her employer at least four weeks before the expected date of return and confirming this notification between four and two weeks before the expected date of return. These requirements are necessary to provide adequate information to employers who must then make arrangements facilitating the employee's return to her job.

Employees are clearly informed of the requirements of the Act on the application form for the Department of Social Welfare maternity allowances schemes. In addition, the Department of Labour provide an explanatory booklet setting out the requirements of the Act.

I understand that only a small number of cases come before the Employment Appeals Tribunal on this issue. Over the last seven years an average of less than five cases per year have been heard by the tribunal in relation to the notification procedures. This number of cases is estimated to represent only 0.05 per cent, or one in every two thousand, of all women who take maternity leave under the Act. Clearly, the notification procedures pose no difficulty for the vast majority of women availing of the maternity leave provisions of the Act.

Let me take the last part of the Minister's reply first. The Minister refers to the very small numbers who come before the courts in this regard — something like five a year. I am sure the Minister will agree that it is only a tiny percentage of people who will pursue such matters through the courts. Consider all the people who accept a notification sent to them that they did not comply with the Act and are, therefore, not entitled to their allowance. Will the Minister agree that the regulations are quite complex? A series of written notices must be sent to the employer and the onus is on the employee to ensure that all of those notices are sent and if one is missed they lose their entitlement to maternity leave. Could the Minister reassess the complex procedures required and make them much simpler?

I do not think they are over-complex. I do not mind looking at it again but people are informed of what they have to do and, in fairness to employers, I do not think I can go all one way. If an employee wishes to return to work having been out for a number of weeks, I do not think it is too much to ring up just to say they will be back with four weeks to go, and then to send a note with two weeks to go. An employer who probably would have taken on a locum or a temporary person can then make the necessary arrangements to let that person go and bring back the person returning to the job. The fact that the job is there is not the kind of thing a person would forget. There are a very small number of cases only. I understand that women are informed by the Department of Social Welfare when they go on maternity leave.

What would introduce more certainty would be further notification by the Department of Social Welfare which might be too costly. I examined that possibility but it would appear it would be too cumbersome and would cost quite an amount of money. All we can do is engage in a campaign to exhort those people on maternity leave to be somewhat more diligent. For example, last year there were four people involved only. I do not accept the Deputy's assertion that women would adopt the attitude — there goes my job. That is not what happens in the case of the Employment Appeals Tribunal of the Labour Court. It is more likely they would be fighting their case whether or not they were covered and most employers would not be too rigid in implementing the law. We are talking about employers who play the legislation to the ultimate. But I will examine whether there is any way of notifying people without incurring substantial expenditure.

It seems most unfair that, for a technical reason, a person would lose the right to return to work. Perhaps a provision stipulating that an employer would have to write to them before the relevant date would overcome the problem.

I would have to say that, generally speaking, the Employment Appeals Tribunal are sympathetic to employees. I do not think they would be sympathetic to any employer endeavouring to catch people out; they tend not to be that rigid.

Top
Share