New to HR? Templates, tools and development to make you a seasoned pro in no time.
Shawn Premer shows how doing the right thing for employees leads to positive business results.
Is your employee handbook keeping up with the changing world of work? With SHRM's Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
Build competencies, establish credibility and advance your career—while earning PDCs—at SHRM Seminars in 12 cities across the U.S. this spring.
#SHRM18 will expand your perspective – on your organization, on your career, and on the way you approach HR. Join us in Chicago June 17-20, 2018
Members may download one copy of our sample forms and templates for your personal use within your organization. Please note that all such forms and policies should be reviewed by your legal counsel for compliance with applicable law, and should be modified to suit your organization’s culture, industry, and practices. Neither members nor non-members may reproduce such samples in any other way (e.g., to republish in a book or use for a commercial purpose) without SHRM’s permission. To request permission for specific items, click on the “reuse permissions” button on the page where you find the item.
When the shared parental leave provisions (SPL) were introduced in the United Kingdom in 2015 there was much debate as to whether employers who offered enhanced rates of pay for women on maternity leave should offer the same to men taking SPL. The government was of the view that that this was not necessary, but it seemed only a matter of time before the courts would have to decide the issue. The latest case has found in favor of a male employee who was not entitled to the same enhanced pay when on SPL that his female colleagues on maternity leave benefitted from (Ali v. Capita Customer Management Ltd).
Ali (the court did not provide his first name) was entitled to two weeks' paid paternity leave, while his female colleagues on maternity leave were entitled to 14 weeks pay, followed by 25 weeks' at the statutory maternity pay rate. He claimed that, given that it was open to parents to choose which of them took leave to care for their child, it was direct sex discrimination to then pay the mother more than the father in respect of that leave. The employment tribunal upheld his direct discrimination claim.
This will not be the end of the matter. It is only an employment tribunal decision and is therefore not binding on other tribunals. In addition, in an earlier case on this issue, a different tribunal found in favor of the employer. It is however our view that this decision fits with the current direction of travel given the government's manifesto pledge to encourage greater sharing of childcare responsibilities. Employers should review their policies and consider whether current pay arrangements are deterring male employees from taking leave (as was the case here). Unfortunately, however, we need an appeal court to provide further clarity for employers.
Nick Hurley is an attorney with Charles Russell Speechlys in London. © 2017 Charles Russell Speechlys. All rights reserved. Reposted with permission of Lexology.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please sign in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Talent Attraction Study: What Matters to the Modern Candidate
Apply by March 23
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies