The Herald has covered the swinging fortune of litigants involved in maternity rights cases, which continued earlier this year with the judgements of the English Court of Appeal. In the cases of both Heather Crees v Royal London Mutual Assurance Society and Janet Greaves v Kwik Save Stores, the Court reversed previous decisions of the Employment Appeal Tribunal and came out in favour of Mrs Crees and Mrs Greaves.
Both women had been on maternity leave, complied with all the necessary paperwork but then failed to return to work due to ongoing illness. Their employers had relied on the statutory provisions which allow the return to work to be postponed for medical reasons for up to four weeks but on one occasion only.
The Court of Appeal said there was a ''delicate and difficult'' balance to be struck between the protection of female employees and the protection of the employer from uncertainty. But they concluded that to allow the original decisions in favour of the employers to stand would have produced ''absurd and unjust'' results.
An employment specialist in a Glasgow law firm said: ''The critical conclusion reached by the Court depended on a distinction between the right to return and an actual, physical return.
''The Court felt there was nothing in the legislation which said that the rights terminated if actual work was not commenced. What they concluded was that the right to return had been exercised by the two females when they gave the necessary written notices - they did not need to turn up at the gate to complete that exercise.''
Connal added: ''The Court of Appeal made it clear their rulings were only on the particular arguments before them and did not cover cases where individuals had failed to comply with any of the paperwork requirements.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article