One of the criteria for taking additional paternity leave and pay (APLP) for a newborn child - is that the child’s father must give proper APLP notice to their employer - at least eight weeks before the start date of the APLP period.
The child’s father may provide such notice by giving a completed Form SC7 to their employer at least eight weeks before the start date of the APLP period.
An employee may complete a Form SC8 in relation to taking APLP for an adopted child or a Form SC9 in relation to taking APLP for a child adopted from abroad.
In FuB v Stadt Halle (C-243/09), Mr FuB was a fire-fighter who worked more than 48 hours per week. Mr FuB told his employer that he wanted to work for a maximum of 48 hours per week. However, in accordance with German law – the employer transferred Mr FuB to an office job in the fire service control room - so that he could work for a maximum of 48 hours per week.
The ECJ held that the transfer was unlawful under the Working Time Directive. The transfer had deprived Mr FuB of his legal right to work for a maximum of 48 hours per week as a fire-fighter.
Also see FuB v Stadt Halle (C-429/09).
An employer’s checklist [Form ASPP3] for additional paternity leave and pay (APLP) is available at HMRC.
Eligibility forms and records for additional paternity pay are also available at HMRC.
Further information about APLP is available at Business Link.
Where an employer is proposing to make 20 - 99 redundancies at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less – the consultation period (CP) must begin at least 30 days before the first of the dismissals takes effect: s. 188 of the TULR(C)A 1992.
In Hammonds LLP v Mwitta [EAT/0026/10], Ms Mwitta was made redundant – but the CP did not begin at least 30 days before the date of her dismissal.
However - on the facts of the case - the EAT held that Ms Mwitta’s dismissal was fair. Although the CP did not begin at least 30 days before the date of Ms Mwitta’s dismissal – it did not mean that her dismissal was automatically unfair.
Note: Hammonds LLP paid a protective award of 30 days’ pay to Ms Mwitta because the CP did not begin at least 30 days before the date of her dismissal.
Update [13 October 2010]
However, in Pinewood Repro Ltd v Page [EAT/0028/10], the EAT held that an employee's redundancy dismissal was unfair due to an unfair consultation. The employer did not explain the basis of the employee's score of 60% for a subjective flexibility criterion to enable the employee to challenge the score [see paras. 43 - 46].
In Nixon v Ross Coates Solicitors [EAT/0108/10], Ms Nixon slept with Mr Wright, a work colleague, on the night of their employer's Xmas Party in 2007.
In early 2008, after Ms Nixon had confidentially informed her employer that she was pregnant – she complained (in writing) that Ms O’Hara, the HR manager, was spreading gossip about whether Mr Wright was the father of her baby. Ms Nixon suggested working at another office in order to avoid Ms O’Hara.
The employer responded by asking Ms Nixon to return to the office - and suggested that she could make a formal complaint about Ms O’Hara when she returned to the office.
Ms Nixon resigned and successfully claimed that she had been constructively dismissed. The EAT said that the employer had breached the implied term of trust and confidence - because it had failed to deal with Ms Nixon’s complaint - and insisted that she should return to a workplace that had become offensive to her.
The EAT added that the gossip about whether Mr Wright was the father of Ms Nixon’s baby was sexual harassment. The gossip was unwanted conduct that was related to Ms Nixon’s pregnancy and the pregnancy was related to her sex.
