We asked in our survey if 6 months would be an adequate period of “return to work” for redundancy protection purposes or did respondents think a different period of “return to work” would work better . 75% said yes, 6 months was adequate, 25% disagreed. Comments included: It should be one year - some employers wait until the employee returns and then dismiss them on redundancy grounds within the 6 moths of returning; Gives return to work mothers settling in time akin to a probationary period length - this is a fair amount of time to make it affordable for employers (depending on the size of the employer); 6 months is more than adequate, gives them a further advantage over all employees who could be part of a redundancy situation; 3 months would be classed as adequate as they are protected from beginning of pregnancy to the end of maternity leave and this gives them up to 18 months of being out of scope for redundancy compared to their colleagues and could be deemed as advantageous for women.
The consultation asked should pregnancy for redundancy protection purposes be defined as starting at the point a woman informs her employer that she is pregnant in writing.
13% strongly agree, 13% agree, 37% disagree, 12 % strongly disagree and 25% remain neutral.
Following on from this question we asked if respondents felt that a different reference point should be used and if so, what it should be. Three quarters said yes, a different reference point should be used, comments included: • 2-3 months prior to expected week of confinement. • At the point the employee is leaving to start her maternity • The woman could be unfairly dismissed before any other point if this is set after her formally informing her employers. One caveat would be if redundancy procedures had already begun. The consultation also asked that if additional redundancy protection is extended to mothers returning to work after maternity leave, are there other forms of leave which should be considered also, citing as examples: adoption leave; shared parental leave and longer periods of parental leave. All respondents indicated that adoption leave should be considered, the majority thought shared parental leave should be considered and the last option received a half and half split between yes and no.
Our full response to the consultation is available on our website under My CIPP/Policy hub.
The CIPP policy team will continue to engage with The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and stakeholders regarding the proposals in this consultation and will keep members and readers updated accordingly.
Back to Contents
CIPP Survey: 2019 LPC annual review of the National Minimum Wage 23 April 2019
As they celebrate 20 years of the National Minimum Wage, the Low Pay Commission are currently carrying out their annual review which seeks views from the widest possible range of contributors.
To support the CIPP written response to the 2019 consultation the policy team have published a survey to collect views and opinions as to the:
• affordability of the National Living Wage (NLW) rate and effects of an increase to the ‘on target’ rate for April 2020 – currently around £8.67 • evidence of the impact of increases in the NLW since its introduction – including the April 2019 uprating – on workers, employers, the labour market and the economy • evidence of how employers are seeking to improve productivity • evidence on how the economic outlook is affected by the process of leaving the European Union. The LPC in consideration of all other rates which impact workers under 25 and apprentices are also seeking evidence to make recommendations on their traditional basis which is ‘helping raise the pay for as many low-paid workers as possible without damaging their employment prospects’ .
The survey will close on 24 May 2019.
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Payroll: need to know
cipp.org.uk
Page 36 of 629
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker