Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 9 July 2014
7. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will revise the public service sick leave scheme in order that absence due to pregnancy-related illness is not counted as sick leave. [29515/14]
Amharc ar fhreagraA new public service sick leave scheme was introduced earlier this year. The Minister had the power to change regulations under that scheme. This question relates specifically to the changes in the treatment of pregnancy-related sick leave which I believe is particularly discriminatory against women because a difficult pregnancy could see a woman eating up her entire allowance and, as a result, not being able to avail of sick leave later on without incurring a significant financial penalty. Will the Minister revise this aspect of the new arrangements?
The legal position on the treatment of pregnancy-related illness, in particular the issue raised in the Deputy's question, is set out in a European Court of Justice ruling in the McKenna case. This case addressed, inter alia, the counting of sick leave for pregnancy-related illness. The court considered it was not discriminatory for pregnancy-related absences to be offset against the maximum number of days of paid sick leave to which a female employee was entitled. However, it also confirmed that, although it was not discriminatory to count the number of pregnancy-related sick leave days, a woman should still have access to the minimum payment she would have received if she had not suffered a pregnancy-related illness. In accordance with this, the new sick leave scheme provides that any pregnancy-related absence for which a female employee has been paid at the half rate will not count towards her paid sick leave limits. Pregnancy-related illnesses are also discounted in consideration for promotion and higher duty allowances. In addition, consistent with the judgment, the new sick leave scheme provides that a female employee who suffers from a pregnancy-related illness will be covered by the same sick leave provisions as other employees and will also have additional protections afforded to her in order that her pay does not fall below a certain level.
In these ways, the public service sick leave scheme recognises the distinct position of the pregnant worker and makes provision for the protection of the health and welfare of such workers. The new scheme not only implements the principles of European law in the non-discrimination against pregnant workers, it also provides additional support in the context of the new critical illness protocol. While I am keeping the new sick leave scheme under constant review, I do not intend to revise it at this early stage until I have seen how it works in practice. I have, however, committed to undertaking a formal review of the new scheme after a full year of its operation to ensure any adjustment necessary to enhance the operation of the scheme may be made. I will consider all issues raised in the course of the year as part of that review and any anomaly or unforeseen implication of the scheme will be addressed.
I am glad that there will be a review which I take it will take place in March 2015. I appreciate that there are health and safety implications and that a pregnant woman can avail of extra entitlements. The problem arises in cases in which sick leave eats into a pregnant woman’s entitlements, but later on, when she is not pregnant, she cannot avail of sick leave because her entitlement has been used up. It is precisely the people who may not have a poor record in taking sick leave who may encounter a difficult pregnancy which eats up their sick leave and who are the ones being afflicted. It has caused significant stress across the public sector. For example, I have received correspondence from a young mother in my area who had to go back to work because of the fear that her pay would be docked. Like many young couples, she is in negative equity. She has made the point that in the 12 years of her working life as a teacher she had never missed a day until she experienced a difficult pregnancy. Owing to a virus among pupils in her school, her doctor told her to stay off work for four weeks because it posed a danger to her baby. The virus returned to the school and she missed another two weeks. She also had another difficulty which meant a stay in hospital. Suddenly, one can see how her sick leave entitlement was used up. She was literally crying in writing to me. Another teacher sent me an e-mail from her hospital bed about not being able to avail of sick leave. That is where the problem lies and the issue needs to be addressed.
Pregnancy is not an illness. Obviously, people are entitled to maternity leave. If there are illnesses associated with pregnancy, they are, as I indicated, treated in a special way. The Deputy is saying someone who has a pregnancy-related illness is anxious that she might be ill for another reason later after the pregnancy. We can address when that might happen as opposed to being anxious that they are clocking up days. Pregnancy-related illness was never fully discounted in sick leave arrangements. We have looked carefully at what the European Court of Justice has stated.
We are applying best international practice to it. Ours is not only equivalent to but as good as any sick leave arrangement we have studied. We will see how this pans out. I do not think that women who are pregnant and are out of work with pregnancy-related illnesses should be anxious that somehow they might get ill again and that it might impact on them.
It is okay to say that but they are very worried because of the reduced sick leave allowance. That example I quoted means that young woman’s entire sick leave has been eaten up through this pregnancy. She will not get that sick leave back because she had not used up her sick leave before that. For the next four years she will not be entitled to paid sick leave. That is the worry. Many public sector workers have taken huge hits in their wages and the prospect of going on to half pay or no pay for a couple of days or a week or two is seriously worrying. People are taking risks, like the woman who was advised for the benefit of her pregnancy not to go to work, which she could have done otherwise. I know of another woman who said she could not afford to go on half pay as she had substantial rent and bills to pay every month. She said she was admitted to hospital with suspected pre-eclampsia and was so angry she was writing the e-mail from her hospital bed. Others have repeated that experience. That is the anomaly that needs to be worked out. It is okay to say people should not stress about it but they are stressed because they are already on the breadline.
I do not understand that particular issues would arise. Although I do not know the details of the case or the particular illnesses of the person the Deputy describes but somebody encompassed by the critical illness process has access to 12 months of paid leave on exactly the same basis as on the previous scheme, that is, 364 days of fully paid leave in a rolling year followed by six months, 182 days, on half pay.
I do not know how long somebody might be ill but the notion that someone would be out for more than a year and a half in a four year period and expect to be fully paid does not fit international norms. There is an understanding that if one is ill one cannot work and in a normal employment, in the private sector, one is supported as long as possible but there is an understanding but there is a limit to the time when somebody is out on full pay.
