As an employee of ARUM LTD if Melissa was to make any potential claim against employers her cases would be grounded among two legal areas; maternity and family friendly rights.
Pregnant women and new mothers enjoy a wide but complex set of legal rights which regulate their relationship with their employers. All women who get pregnant have fundamental legal rights with their employer which cover; time of for antenatal care, leave for maternity and safeguard from unjust dismissal.
Regulation 7 of The Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulation 1999 states that all female employees, regardless of length of service, are entitled to take Ordinary Maternity Leave (OML), the first 26 weeks of pregnancy, and Additional Maternity Leave (AML), the second 26 weeks. In this circumstance, Melissa specified to her line manager that she would take both OML and AML. This was agreed by the line manager and all the procedures duly completed.
Section 71(4)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 states that Melissa ‘is entitled to the benefit of the terms and conditions of employment which would have applied if she had not been absent’. In the unlikely event that Melissa had signed a new contract of employment on the day of her leave stating otherwise, Melissa was still bound by the same existing contract agreement prior to her pregnancy, ARUM Ltd would be in breach of contract of employment, by withdrawing the company car.
Mellissa’s long and difficult journey home by public transport from her baby shower can be perceived as detriment to her health as her keys to the company car were taken away from her abruptly; leaving her with no choice but to take an alternative harmful route home. As highlighted in S47C an employee has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer because she is pregnant or maternity leave.
Ordinary Maternity Leave begins on the day she notified her employer that she wanted it start, which happened to be December 2012. OML provides Melissa with 26 weeks off work. Should Melissa solely of requested for OML, her employee position at ARUM Ltd would have remained the same (in accordance with her contract of employment prior to her pregnancy).
However Mellissa took both OML and AML, meaning her duties and responsibilities are applicable to change and similarly become restricted.
A ‘return back to work’ after AML is slightly different then to OML. MPL (Reg 18) state that a woman returning to work after taking any additional maternity leave has
the right to return to “the job in which she was employed before her absence”
unless this is not reasonably practicable in which case she should be offered
“another job which is both suitable for her and appropriate for her to do”.
The same regulation specifies that any suitable alternative job should be on
no less favourable terms and conditions – including with regard to
remuneration – and should have the same seniority, pension...