Results are never accurate Results are sometimes accurate
• •
• Accurate now I have established a regular pattern • I have never checked • I have given up checking
We appreciate that it is just a yes or no answer so if you have any comments, we would love to hear them; please email us at policy.
Back to Contents
CIPP response to consultation on extending redundancy protection for women and new parents 8 April 2019
The CIPP has submitted its formal response to the Government’s consultation on extending redundancy protection for women and new parents.
This consultation was published at the end of January and recommended that the current protection afforded under the Maternity and Paternity Leave etc Regulations 1999 (which apply to the period of maternity leave) be extended to cover the period of pregnancy and a period after, an extension of 6 months. This is a commitment that was made in the government’s response to the Taylor Review, and had also previously been raised by the Women and Equalities Select Committee (WESC). set out the current legal protections for pregnancy and maternity; • asked how an extension of redundancy protection into a period of “return to work” might best work; • asked whether similar protection should be afforded to other groups; • set out the steps that the Government is taking to increase business and employer awareness of their rights and obligations, and invites comments on how they might be improved, to tackle pregnancy discrimination more effectively in general; • considered the existing approach to the enforcement of employment and equalities legislation in the context of recommendations from WESC and the Taylor Review; and • discussed the tribunal time limit. The consultation: •
We received 22 responses to the survey we ran on this consultation.
Key findings from the survey 75% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that protections against redundancy for a period following return to work should be aligned with those already in place during maternity leave. Some of the reasons cited were: • experience of women being disadvantaged and unfairly selected for redundancy whilst on leave and in some cases a few months after they have returned to work. • To protect women especially if they return on a part time basis. • Protection should be in place, but it should not mean that a returnee from Maternity leave would be placed in a role that they could not do and would therefore have a negative effect on the company, rather than someone who is skilled in that role being offered it first. When asking about the costs that an extension may bring, for the cost to businesses, responses included the possibility of losing the wrong people in a re-structure situation due to protections being in place. For the cost to individuals, responses included that additional responsibilities may be added to the role, and a higher risk of redundancy if not returning from Maternity leave due to being 'lower' in the order for possible re-structuring. The consultation also asked about what benefits the extension may bring and responses for business benefits included: Retaining qualified/experienced staff; Diverse employers who look out for everyone’s needs; Business would be able to better assess a person's skill once they are settled into the routine of their job, and therefore if the job is still required in a re-structure situation. Responses for individual benefits included: Women would be less exploited; May encourage more women to return to work; It would benefit from a wellbeing perspective; Gives the individual a settling in period; For those returning better job security, however for others none.
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Payroll: need to know
cipp.org.uk
Page 35 of 629
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker