Pregnant women denied paid parental leave, review hears

    Susie O'Brien
    Herald Sun
    July 03, 2013


BOSSES are sacking pregnant women to stop them from accessing paid parental leave, submissions to a national review reveal.      

Pregnant women are being fired so they miss out on the 18-week federally funded scheme because they haven't held their job for a full year.

Sometimes they are terminated just a week before they qualify for paid leave, a submission from Victoria Legal Aid shows.

Evidence to the Federal Government's review of the paid parental leave scheme shows pregnancy discrimination is endemic and has got worse in recent years.

Victoria Legal Aid program manager in equality law Melanie Schleiger said some employers were worried about the costs or perceived risks of having a worker on paid parental leave.

"It's staggering how many women are fired or made redundant on performance grounds the day they tell their employer they are pregnant," she said.      

Women often find it impossible to prove discrimination, obtain compensation or another job, according to submissions. And not one woman has yet been able to reclaim her lost paid parental leave rights.

JobWatch, the Victorian workers' legal centre, said it had received about 6000 complaints about pregnancy discrimination in the past decade.

Complaints had doubled in percentage terms in the past 10 years.

The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission told the Herald Sun it had received 54 complains about pregnancy-related employment discrimination, and 272 since 2007-08.

It had received 1792 inquiries about pregnancy and employment in the past six years.

Acting Commissioner Karen Toohey said smaller business owners might fire women because they were worried about the cost of parental leave or didn't want to accommodate periods of leave.

"But we do find women can often have their rights restored through conciliation," she said.

Maurice Blackburn lawyer Emeline Gaske said some employers were scared of the obligations associated with hiring pregnant women.

Rachel Perkins, founder of JustMums Recruitment, said she had dealt with about 25 women in the past year who had been discriminated against while pregnant.

"Sometimes they are fired when they disclose their pregnancy, other times they discover their return-to-work conditions are changed when a new manager comes in," she said.      

Read more: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/worklife/pregnant-women-denied-paid-parental-leave-review-hears/story-e6frfm9r-1226673935021#ixzz2Y1DqgHMC

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 7:25am:



It's almost as if that's exactly what it was designed to do.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 7:25am:



hey we finally agree on something pansi...whatdoya know...

why did we need to pay women all of a sudden to have a baby... doesnt make sense..maternity leave for sure.. every women is entitled to job security but when it comes to being paid not to work.. I draw the line..

as you say it puts employers right off...

have you ever known a generation to get so many handouts.????

cods wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 8:15am:



Anything to buy votes cods.

Paid maternity leave, baby bonus, school allowance....the list goes on. No wonder people can't make ends meet with their pay packet, they're relying on govt. handouts. Welfare should be for the poor and struggling only.

If you can't afford new school uniforms for your kids, you buy second hand. Have you seen these silly reports that come out saying it costs a million dollars to put a child through school?......no, it doesn't. What ever happened to two days camping for a school trip? we got too precious for that, didn't we. Now it's off to Bali or Europe once a year, it annoys me that kids have to be indulged to that extent whilst their parents are on the welfare teat.

Ban wealthfare!!!!

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 7:25am:


you make a good point pansi.  Whenever parliament introduces these new-fangled benefits they seem to forget that it imposes sometimes substantial burdens on employers and most of them are small business which makes it worse.  Im a small business owner and I would certainly hesitate to high a woman of child-bearing age for just this reason.  I could not afford to have to let someone go for a year, pay someone inexperienced to take their place for just a year and then have to sack them and give the original person their job back even though having a child would preclude them from the job in the first place.

ian wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 10:18am:



Really?

Men on maternity leave?

You might want to check that.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 10:20am:

Yes, sounds ridiciulous, but i dont need to check it, you do. Yes, they call it parental leave now, ok Greggary, you won your minor point. Now post a cretinous gif.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 11:16am:
Who cares, the term is in common use, most people I know including human resources use the term instead of "parental" simply because it defines exactly why the leave is to be given. i.e. one or the other has had a child. You are just arguing semantics because of the constant hiding you are copping on this forum. Another point, homosexual couples are also entitled to the leave. we have gone crazy in this country, we need urgently to start rolling these entitlements back. We need to return to a role model of a traditional nuclear family or our scoiety is going to be in serious trouble.