I have a quick question regarding the maternity leave situation for one of our employees. We work in a small chemical company (about 20 staff) and she is due to give birth in the spring. This is a new situation from us since no other member of staff has been through this process whilst at this company. Anyway, due to the nature of what we do she has been doing only office based work since discovering she was pregnant, this was the decision of the company director. So she does fairly low risk and low stress jobs. But I was concerned about when she leaves for maternity leave, how much notice she give and whether or not we can force her to start maternity leave if we think that she is becoming a liability at work. The reason I ask this question is because I overheard a comment where she said she’d start maternity leave the day before she gives birth if possible. I guess this decision is based on finances rather than the benefit of the mother and child, which I find a little shocking. Anyway, this comment may have been flippant but it does concern me that someone would adopt this attitude towards giving birth, especially since they have been so vehement in their argument to stop a lab work once the pregnancy was announced, something I did not agree with since the lab are already risked assessed and deemed safe – but that is a different matter. But it worries me that if she has an accident like a trip or fall that we will be liable. Plus if she does work until she is ready to drop that we are not really equipped to cope other than call an ambulance.


Sorry to ramble on a bit, but I though it was better to ass a little context to my query.


So in brief, is there any way we can encourage her to start maternity leave if we think she is at risk during the final few weeks leading up to the due date? Any advice on this would be much appreciated.

but then if she's two weeks late, she's 'used' a month of her maternity leave all ready. You talk like she's contagious not just pregnant :)

Surely it's her choice and as long as she can do the job and there is no significnat risk to her what's the problem?

NB just have towels and hot water ready just incase!

P.S, this response was based upon personal opinion and not legislative fact, maybe someone can provide a better answer?

Sorry if I sounded harsh but we are a very small company surviving on small margins. When she discovered she was pregnant she pretty much refused to carry on her regular job without even discussing it or looking at our risk additional assessment. We have tried to compromise but of course it is expensive for the company. So my comments are based on her attitude somewhat, and also wanting to the best for the company. But it also goes without saying that I want what is best for her and the baby, but when she acts so blasé about it herself it makes you wonder why you bother. I know other mothers that have take off a month or even more before for the benefit of themselves and their baby. I also worry about an accident happening at work since we might end up liable, surely I have every right to worry about this since it could cost everybody their jobs. We are not a massive company that can say take time off on full pay without it having serious implications.

Thanks farrel, that kind of answers my point, I wondered if under those circumstances she might be best suited to staring maternity leave early, but obviously not. I was told that if an expetent mother was ill due to a pregnancy related illness 4 weeks prior to the expected birth date that she had to start maternity leave, obviously this is wrong.

You use a word like force an get abuse for it, I thought of using the word encourage but that is not the correct word in this context since there may be a legal precident. If someone is a liabilty then ignoring it would be irresponsible. I see no difference between this and requesting that someone who is clearly ill at work and not capable of doing the job to leave as sick and not carry on, so I think force would be a suitable word, sorry if I have no access to a thesaurus! Blimey I am trying to do the best for the mother and company. And I get called judgmental. I am concerned for the company and her welfare. It is quite a balancing act sometimes.

If she's not doing much at all MartyB then is her position necessary. Oh and I shouldn't worry too much about personal criticisms as they tend to arise from those who would prefer we all thought and expressed ourselves in a particular manner!!

Although it might be a scarey prospect my experience of pregnant workers working up to full term has been perfectly fine. They have been able to carry on working (sometimes with adjustments to their normal duties) with no real problems, and we've not had an emergency at work birthing situation yet! It's really just a case of assessment and waiting to see what happens. And sometimes people start off thinking they want to work until the last possible moment but change their mind as the time gets nearer.

U do not tell us about your H&S skill level as a risk assessment can be such that it covers all things or just the basics and £ does come into the picture where very small margins are present so the more H&S competence U have the more U can do/account for. Noting that your duty is to her and her unborn and sometimes that duty is to suspend a person from work even where they do not want to go if its foreseeable that staying increases risk where going can reduce/control the risk to a better level

Just because somebody is pregnant does not mean that they are also cooperative, considerate etc and willing to work with their employer and remember this is not classed as an illness and she must give U appropriate information so as U can risk assess properly so she has duties as well

Best of luck and if the baby is born in the office your company may benefit from the press coverage!