New mums lose out for being in touch with work
NEW mothers are missing out on thousands of pounds of pay and being left out of pocket for weeks due to failings of their employers during maternity leave, according to a parental leave rights group.
Workers on parental or adoption leave can work up to ten days during their time off, Government guidelines state. These so-called Keeping In Touch (Kit) days allow workers to maintain contact with colleagues, stay up-to-date with changes at work and benefit from a smoother return to work after a lengthy period away.
They also allow new parents to earn at a time when their incomes will have dropped considerably.
But online platform Nugget Savings says there is ‘lawlessness’ in how Kit days are managed by some firms. It says employers ‘have all the control and power with Kit days, can decide if employees can have them and what they are paid, potentially leaving women feeling devalued’.
It says: ‘We get dozens of comments and messages every time we post about Kit days from women in the NHS, in law firms and small businesses, who say that due to the lack of legislation in this area they are confused and losing out on money.’
Government guidelines say Kit days are optional and both employee and employer need to agree to them.
They stipulate that the type of work and pay employees get should be agreed before they come into work. The employee’s right to maternity or adoption leave and pay is not affected by taking Kit days.
Katie Guild, co-founder of Nugget Savings, says: ‘If the pay isn’t pre-agreed before they go on leave, it’s yet another thing women have to think about while on maternity leave. It can make women feel awkward and unsure of where they stand with their employer. We know of women who did not agree their rate for Kit days prior to taking them, have travelled to and from work incurring high commuting costs, only to find that they were paid minimum wage for their work, way below their normal rate, and thus have seen no financial benefit to the days worked.
‘In one case, a partner of a law firm didn’t get paid for her Kit days, as technically, being a partner, she is self-employed.’
Alice*, who works in publishing, was outraged after she worked three KIT days in the first three months of maternity leave and got nothing due to her employer’s rule to not pay for them in this time period.
‘I was shocked, firstly because I had checked the company policy and raised Kit days with my line manager beforehand,’ says Alice. ‘I had assumed it would be paid, but it turned out the company policy was written in a woolly, confusing way.
‘It was also a rude awakening to find out that the law allows firms to set their own rules.
‘I felt cheated as I had done the work. And it badly affected my budgeting – in this climate you count every penny. It only added to my sleep-deprived stress.’
Employees must be paid at least minimum wage for Kit days – there is no legal requirement for employers to pay more. That means some can receive a fraction of their usual salaried rate.
For example, someone on an average salary of £33,000 a year, which equates to £126.50 a day, can be left earning £72.94 if paid the National Minimum Wage.
Another mother, Emma* was shocked to learn that her employer, a big investment bank, would pay her for Kit days but only on her return to work some four months later.
This is in contravention of official guidance that says payment for Kit days should be made in the usual way, in the payroll for the week or month worked.
‘I didn’t bother working Kit days in the end. I weighed it up and realised I’d rather spend time with my baby. But I lost out on £1,700 as a result,’ she says.
Emma thought she had fully understood Kit days after group Zoom meetings with the human resources department before maternity leave and receiving an email with all policy details.
‘The email is pages long, generic and, on reflection, opaque. It was only after I’d had my baby that I had the capacity to fully consider my Kit days. I actually found out about delayed payment by accident from a colleague also on mat leave.’
Emma knows of several colleagues who have not used Kit days for the same reason, saying: ‘It’s definitely a deterrent. Surely they should be encouraging you to come back to the office? I have a complex role. I needed to be eased back in and get back up to speed. Going straight back in was overwhelming.’
Both women asked to remain anonymous as they fear being labelled difficult employees if they raise the issue at work.
In the case of Alice, however, minimum wage was not even guaranteed for the Kit days she worked during the first three months of her maternity leave as she was in receipt of full pay.
‘I was told I’d get nothing because the policy is just to “top up” whatever you’re getting to full pay. So if you’re getting half pay you’d get half, if you’re getting nothing then you’d get a full day’s pay,’ she says.
Nugget Savings says it has heard from many women about their poor experience of Kit days and says employers benefit while women aren’t necessarily getting value from attending them.
Harriet Morton-Liddle, Nugget Savings’ other co-founder, adds: ‘It defeats the point of Kit days. We know 85 per cent of women leave full-time employment within three years of having a child. A big part of that is the cost of childcare. But we’ve heard from a lot of women that they feel abandoned by their employers during maternity leave.
‘Some don’t hear from them for the entirety of their leave, only to find half their team have left. This adds to the feeling of being irrelevant and undervalued. Low payment for Kit days can further underline this message.’
Jonothan Scollen, a solicitor at employment law firm Howarths, says it is unlawful for an employer to subject employees to a detriment because they have worked a Kit day.
He adds: ‘It could (and likely would) give rise to a maternity discrimination claim if the only reason the employer delayed payment was because it was a Kit day or because the employee was on maternity leave. Employers are also very likely to open themselves up to grievances if this was standard practice, unless there were clear and objective reasons as to why the payment of the Kit salary was delayed, such as cashflow management.’
He adds that whether paying less for a Kit day could breach equal pay laws is a legal unknown as this hasn’t been addressed in any reported case law.
‘I could see an argument that a woman on a Kit day, doing the same work as a male colleague, ought to be paid equally,’ he says. ‘It could also give rise to claims, so the legal risks of paying an employee much less for working a Kit day could be significant.’
* Names have been changed
‘Some paid minimum wage for their work’ ‘Women are left feeling undervalued’