Maternity leave is recognised by the International Labour Organisation and the UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women as a fundamental employment right for all women.
Yet at workplaces, it remains a contentious issue and subject to misinterpretation by employers and employees alike.
Section 18 of the Labour Act, Chapter 28:01 entitles a pregnant employee to 98 days or 14 weeks paid maternity leave.
The female employee must furnish the employer with a certificate signed by a doctor or state-registered nurse certifying that she is pregnant and the expected date of delivery of the baby.
The Act further stipulates that the maternity leave must commence not earlier than 45 days but not later than 21 days before the expected date of birth of the child.
Maternity leave will be granted only once in every two-year period and only up to a maximum of three maternity leave periods with one employer will be paid. Any subsequent periods of maternity leave will be without pay.
The Labour Relations Amendment Number 7 of 2005, effective from December 30 2005 removed the requirement that a woman must have served for at least a year before she can be eligible for paid maternity leave.
A female employee can now proceed on maternity leave at any point and still receive her full salary.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
A frequently asked question is Does an employee forfeit her employment rights whilst on a period of maternity leave? The answer is simple, no.
When an employee is on maternity leave, the employment contract is not altered in any way at all.
During the period when a female employee is on maternity leave, whether paid or unpaid, her normal benefits and entitlements continue uninterrupted as if she had not gone on such leave.
The employee is entitled to return to the position she held immediately before the start of her maternity leave or a position with the same terms and conditions of employment.
The only thing that changes is that once paid maternity leave has begun, the sick leave benefit no longer applies until the woman returns to work after delivery of the child.
A female employee who is breastfeeding is entitled to two half-hour periods, or a one-hour period every day during normal working hours for the purpose of breastfeeding her child.
She may opt to take a morning break or afternoon break, whichever choice she finds convenient.
It is important to note, however, that the structuring of the breastfeeding breaks by the employee should not interfere with the normal operation of the business. If that happens, business interests will take priority.
The breastfeeding period may be taken for a maximum of six months counted from the day the employee returns to work after maternity leave.
If the employee stops breastfeeding the child, weans the child or the child dies before the expiry of the six-month period, the breastfeeding breaks fall away.
Any employer who prevents, hinders or obstructs a female employee from exercising her maternity rights will be guilty of committing an unfair labour practice in terms of the Act.
Is maternity leave a cost or a benefit? I recently solicited the views of readers of this column on whether maternity leave can be regarded as a cost or a benefit.
I received several text messages and e-mails expressing mixed views.
It appears most employers view maternity leave as an unreasonable cost to business.
They count the cost of replacing the absent employee and training the replacement staff member.
As one employer explained, maternity leave would “double our costs, which to a small business like us could have a big impact at the end of the day”.
He explained that small organisations were especially faced with resource constraints and this includes people.
Maternity leave in such instances becomes potentially disruptive and costly. Another employer put it more simply saying “you can’t pay somebody who is not working, it just doesn’t work”.
Yet another employer quipped: “I don’t agree with paid maternity leave in an organisation. I definitely don’t think that it’s viable for a business to run.
With paid maternity leave, I agree with the concept, but I just think “My God, how can businesses afford it?” Surprisingly, a female entrepreneur said maternity leave as an extra cost and burden and something that could affect business competitiveness. Said the business-owner:
“Every little bit that is added in terms of cost just tends to aggravate the disadvantage we already have in terms of competing internationally in a labour sense. So if you then put up paid maternity leave as an obligatory requirement on employers, well it’s just another burden that somehow you have to absorb and still be competitive.
It is pretty hard; it is not that you don’t want to offer your employees good working conditions, but it’s financial burden for no extra gain. It’s unfair to expect business to pay. The state should pay”.
Perhaps former Australian Prime Minister John Howard summed up the employer position well when he remarked that a policy placing financial burden on business was, “uneconomical . . . unfair . . . and it will actually damage the employment prospects of women”.
A young lady receptionist looked at it from a job security perspective and painted a more sinister picture: “I think your job becomes open to someone else”.
She argued that when you proceed on maternity leave, the employer might actually find your temporary replacement to be better than you!
Another group of readers, mostly women, expressed a divergent view.
They opined that the role of women as both producers and reproducers must be recognised through a provision of family-friendly policies such as maternity leave.
One employee said “I think I have been loyal, so I would expect them (employer) to have some loyalty back to me. I’ve been here through the tough times and helped build the business”.
Another said “I think maternity leave would be a positive change to the organisation. Its really valuing your employees a lot more, showing that you are family-oriented and you can sort of bridge the gap between working and family”.
Most employees felt employers will be able to retain valuable, committed and loyal staff while the employee benefits in terms of opportunity to stay at home taking care of young children with a guaranteed job to return to.
Is this a typical case of the glass being half-full or half-empty?
Isaac Mazanhi is a labour analyst. He writes in his own capacity. He can be contacted on e-mail: [email protected] or cell: 0773 063 653
