Gabriela Halířová
Maternity leave and the related legal
questions
Studia Prawnoustrojowe nr 16, 33-44
2012
Gabriela Halirova
Faculty of Law
Palacky U niversity in Olomouc
Maternity leave and the related
legal questions*
In tr o d u c tio n
Pregnancy, ch ild b irth an d m otherhood are im p o rtan t social events th a t require intensive help of th e society to a woman. This help is provided in various forms. Besides th e necessary h e a lth care (p ren atal and p o stn atal care, m edical care directly rela te d to childbirth), th e help in employed wo m en consists in th e ir release from th e fulfilm ent of occupational duties, and in th e provision of m aterial security during this period.
The tim e off, during which a w om an is excused from work for these reasons, is called m ate rn ity leave. As one of th e significant personal obstac les to work on th e employee’s p a rt, it is embodied in the provision of Section 195 ff. Act no. 262/2006 Coll., Labour Code, as subsequently am ended (here in after referred to as “L abour Code”). M atern ity leave is a tra d itio n al legal in stitu te , w hich was provided for by th e previous Labour Code1 practically in
th e sam e form. It is not a m a tte r of dispute anyw here in th e world w hether it is appropriate or purposeful to provide a leave from work to an employed w om an in connection w ith childbirth. On the contrary, th e m inim um d u ra tion of protection in th is period is embodied in a num ber of in tern atio n al tre a tie s an d docum ents dealing w ith th e protection of h u m an rig hts, social righ ts or directly of the individuals looking after children, and w hich are binding for m odern dem ocratic countries.
* T h is a rtic le w a s p u b lis h e d w ith fin a n c ia l su p p o rt from th e GA C R w ith in th e g ra n t p ro ject called “H a rm o n iz a tio n o f w o rk a n d fa m ily ro les of em p lo y ees c a rin g for c h ild re n in th e C zech rep u b lic: co m p a riso n w ith se lec te d fo reig n leg al re g u la tio n s ” no. P408/11/1349.
1 A ct no. 65/1965 Coll., L a b o u r C ode. M a te rn ity leav e a s a p e rs o n a l o b stacle to w o rk (S ectio n 127) w a s also em b o d ied in C h a p te r 7 w ith in th e special w o rk in g co n d itio n s for w om en (S ectio n 149 ff.). H ow ever, th is c la ss ifica tio n w a s co m p letely c o n tra ry to th e sy s te m b ecau se th is is n o t a w o rk in g c o n d itio n t h a t e n a b le s a w o m a n to p e rfo rm w o rk b u t, o n th e co n trary , it is a n o b stacle to w o rk d u e to w h ic h she c a n n o t p e rfo rm w ork.
M atern ity leave provides th e m ost efficient and m axim um protection to women in connection w ith childbirth. Its specificity consists in th e fact th a t it is bound to a certain, exactly defined period in a w om an’s life, i.e. it is not provided through o ut a pregnancy b u t only during the la s t weeks before childbirth, during th e period of ch ild birth an d im m ediately after th a t (puer perium ) as well as during th e first weeks of life of th e newborn, during w hich th e m other is irreplaceable for the child. Therefore, a t th is tim e, w hich places m uch physical, physical, social, and economic dem ands on the m other, it is necessary for h e r to be released from any occupational duties an d task s (she is often not even capable of full work perform ance) in order to protect h e r own h e a lth and th e h e a lth of the child.
M a te rn ity le a v e in L a b o u r C ode
An employee is en titled to a m ate rn ity leave in relation to th e delivery an d care for a new born child in th e sta n d a rd d u ratio n of 28 weeks. In the event of a m ultiple delivery, th e d u ratio n of m ate rn ity leave is more conve n ien t, i.e. it is prolonged to 37 weeks. The stra in p u t on such a female employee is greater, especially economically b u t also psychically; therefore, she needs b e tte r protection in th e form of a longer leave from work.
The law also lays down th e exact tim e period to commence m ate rn ity leave - usually, an employee commences it from th e beginning of the sixth week before the presum ed delivery date, yet no sooner th a n th e s ta r t of the eig hth week before such date. The decisive m om ent is th e delivery date determ ined by th e w om an’s a tten d in g physician on th e basis of a m edical exam ination. It is completely up to th e decision of th e w om an w hich day2 w ith in th e above m entioned period for the com m encem ent of m ate rn ity leave she chooses and indicates as th e com m encem ent d ate in th e prescribed form, w hich is issued by th e a tte n d in g physician and which also serves as the application for th e provision of m ate ria l security du ring m ate rn a l leave - m ate rn ity pay.
The law does not lay down any obligation for a w om an to inform h er em ployer about h e r pregnancy an d to notify him /her of th e comm encem ent of m a te rn ity leave. O ur Labour Code or th e im plem enting regulations do not expressly provide for th is m atter. The aforesaid im plies th a t th e oth er p a rty of th e contractu al relation, i.e. th e employer, is not sufficiently protected either, and m ay face an u n p lea sa n t an d u n c e rtain situ atio n in relatio n to
2 I t is po ssib le to choose a n y d a y o f th e w eek (h o lid ay s a s w ell) b e c a u se th e d u r a tio n of m a te rn ity leave is c o u n te d in w e ek s a s se v e n co n secu tiv e c a le n d a r d ay s, n o t a s th e o rd in a ry c a le n d a r w eek (M o n d ay -S u n d ay ).
late notification of pregnancy, which m ay have an im pact on e.g. th e organi zation of work of the em ployer during m ate rn ity leave, the em ployer cannot a rran g e for an adm ission of a new employee for th e tem porary vacancy well in advance, or in th e event of giving notice to th e fem ale employee3, etc.
In A ustralia, for exam ple, it is req u ired th a t a w om an inform h e r em ployer about being p reg n a n t and about tak in g a m a te rn ity leave a t lea st 10 weeks in advance. In A ustria, a wom an h as to inform h e r em ployer about being p reg n a n t an d about th e probable delivery date im m ediately after she learn s about it herself. Also, she h as to inform th e em ployer about the beginning of h e r m ate rn ity leave imm ediately. In Irelan d and G reat B ritain, a strin g en t procedure m u st be followed w hen com m unicating such inform a tion; otherw ise a w om an could lose h e r claims in th e event of a law suit4.
O ut of th e fixed d u ratio n of s ta tu to ry m ate rn ity leave, six weeks are u sually m ea n t for the period before delivery, and th e rest, i.e. 22 weeks, for th e period after childbirth. This division is a resu lt of double protection provided to women. A wom an is en titled to h e a lth protection, i.e. necessary protection for h e r and th e unborn child during th e la st weeks before the b irth an d during th e first weeks after th a t (a biological factor is presen t here), an d social protection, i.e. protection w ith respect to the child, who needs th e care of its m other during th e first m onths of its life.
Of course, th is division should be considered as r a th e r relativ e (it de pends on th e will of an employee w hen she commences m a te rn ity leave and when the b irth occurs) b u t a certain established practice is concluded from th e fact how th e d uratio n of m ate rn ity leave provided to women who are not biological m others of a child th ey tak e care of is approached. A wom an is en titled to m a te rn ity leave in th e d u ratio n of 22 weeks from th e m om ent of tak in g over th e care of a child5.
If a wom an commences h e r m ate rn ity leave e a rlie r th a n six weeks befo re th e presum ed delivery, or if delivery occurs la te r th a n presum ed, the
3 T h e em p lo y er in te n d s to te r m in a te em p lo y m en t w ith a fem ale em ployee b y notice, e.g. for d is s a tis fa c to ry w o rk in g re s u lts , v io la tio n o f o c cu p a tio n a l d u tie s , for o rg a n iz a tio n re aso n s. H ow ever, d u rin g preg n an cy , a fem ale em ployee is w ith in th e so-called p ro te c tio n p erio d , w h e re a n e x p re ss b a n o f d is m is s a l is v a lid . T h is h o ld s tr u e e v en if th e e m p lo y e r did n o t k n o w ab o u t th e preg n an cy . I t suffices t h a t th e p re g n a n c y a c tu a lly e x is te d a t th e tim e of th e n o tic e (see S ectio n 53 a n d S ectio n 54 LC). I n som e ty p e s o f d ism is sa l, th e r e is a so-called p re c lu siv e period, d u rin g w h ich it is possible to te rm in a te em ploym ent. U n d e r th e prov. of S ection 58 S u b sectio n 1 L a b o u r C ode, in th e e v e n t o f v io la tio n o f a n o b lig atio n a r is in g fro m th e leg al re g u la tio n s re la te d to p e rfo rm e d w o rk or for a re a s o n for w h ic h it is p ossible to te r m in a te em p lo y m en t im m e d ia te ly, th e em p lo y er c a n give n otice to a n em ployee or to te r m in a te em p lo y m en t w ith a n em ployee w ith in tw o m o n th s from th e d a y h e /s h e le a rn e d a b o u t th e re a s o n for n o tice o r im m e d ia te te r m in a tio n o f e m p lo y m en t, y e t no la te r t h a n one y e a r fro m th e d a y th e re a s o n for n otice or im m e d ia te te r m in a tio n o f e m p lo y m en t o ccurred.
4 O ch ra n a m a te rstv i ve sv iti, “S o cialn l p o litik a ” 1998, no. 7 -8 , p. 17.
5 S im ila rly - m a te rn ity leav e in m e n (c h ild re n ’s fa th e rs , m o th e rs ’ h u s b a n d s ) w ho ta k e over th e c are o f a child.
rem ain in g period after childb irth is shortened by such period so th a t the to ta l d u ratio n reaches th e m axim um of 28 or 37 weeks, as th e case m ay be.
However, th ere are cases th a t a fem ale employee cannot use up all six weeks of m ate rn ity leave before ch ild b irth because the delivery occurred e a rlie r th a n h e r physician determ ined, or due to p rem a tu re b irth . Such situ atio ns are relatively common since it is difficult to determ ine exactly w hen a child is born - it is a physiological event th a t depends on m any factors th a t cannot be influenced by volition6. Therefore, a w om an m u st not
be disadvantaged u n d e r th ese circum stances, and she will be provided w ith th e m ate rn ity leave in the full sta n d a rd duration, even if all of th is tim e falls on th e period after child b irth (a wom an does not m anage to commence m ate rn ity leave before delivery due to a p rem a tu re birth).
A different situ a tio n occurs if a wom an does not m anage to use up the six weeks before th e presum ed ch ild b irth due to o th er causes, which are subjective; th e w om an decides to continue to work and commence m atern ity leave la te r - she commences h e r m ate rn ity leave to h e r own d e trim e n t7.
This circum stance is reflected in th e shortening of the to ta l m atern ity leave - th e w om an will only be en titled to a m axim um of 22 weeks after child b irth . This period cannot be extended by the tim e th a t the wom an did not use up before delivery8. This recourse dem onstrates th e fact th a t it is both in
th e in te re st of p reg n a n t employees (especially carrying th e baby to term ) and in th e in te re st of th e h e a lth of th e unborn child th a t women commence m ate rn ity leave in tim e, refrain from work, and do not unnecessarily en d a n ger th e ir pregnancy an d h ealth , and th e m ission of m otherhood. We will come back to th is issue la te r herein w hen considering w h ether tak in g m a te r nity leave is a wom an’s duty.
M a te rn ity le a v e in w o m e n w h o h a v e ta k e n o v e r th e c a re o f a c h ild
U nder Section 197 Labour Code, th e claim to m ate rn ity leave is also en su red to a fem ale employee who has not given b irth to a child, i.e. is not
6 U n le ss it is a p la n n e d C a e s a re a n sectio n delivery, esp e cially d u e to h e a lth re a s o n s on th e p a r t o f th e m o th e r o r th e child.
7 J . Polasek, M. K alen sk a, J . Kolousek, Zena v p ra co vn tm p o m iru , P rag u e: P ra ce 1967, p. 83. 8 U n til 1 J u l y 1987 it w a s po ssib le for a w o m a n to u se u p les s th a n fo u r w e ek s of m a te rn ity leav e before c h ild b irth for o th e r re a s o n s t h a n p r e m a tu r e b ir th , on ly on th e b a s is of a n e x p re ss w r itte n p e rm iss io n o f th e p h y sic ia n s ta tin g t h a t w ith re g a rd to h e r good h e a lth s t a tu s a n d good w o rk in g co n d itio n s sh e c a n c o n tin u e to w ork. T h is p e rm iss io n h a d to be issu e d in ad v an ce. U n til th e e n tr y in to force o f th e a m e n d m e n t to L a b o u r C ode no. 52/1987 Coll., w h ic h c h a n g e s a n d a m e n d s som e o f th e p ro v isio n s o f th e L a b o u r C ode, w h ic h can celled th is o p tio n , th e c o m m en cem en t o f m a te rn ity leave w a s la id dow n w ith in th e p e rio d of e ig h t a n d four w e ek s before th e d e te rm in e d d a te o f d e liv e ry - m a te rn ity leave took 26 w eeks.
th e child’s biological m other, b u t has tak e n over th e care of a child on th e basis of the decision of th e relev an t au th o rity or a child whose m other has died - to su b stitu te m other care.
A decision of th e relev an t au th o rity on resigning a child to th e care su b stitu tin g m other care is needed in such situ ation s w here th e child’s mo th e r h as not died b u t abandoned the child or stopped tak in g care of it for oth er reasons. This concerns the decision of a court or an au th o rity of social and legal protection of children defined in the provision of Section 7 Subsec tion 11 Act no. 117/1995 Coll., on S ta te Social Support, as subsequently am ended9.
In th e event of tak in g over th e care of a child whose m other h as died, no decision of th e relevant au th o rity is required. In case of doubt, a confirm a tion of an au th o rity of social and legal protection of children can be req u ested th a t th e given fem ale employee actually tak es care of th e child10. Mainly, th is concerns th e situ atio n s w here th e care of th e child is ta k e n over by th e siste r or m other of a deceased fem ale employee, i.e. the a u n t or gran dm o ther of the orp h an child.
The d u ratio n of m ate rn ity leave in such women is six weeks shorter, which corresponds to th e leave th a t fem ale employees usu ally tak e before childbirth in relatio n to advanced pregnancy, therefore th ere is no reaso n to preserve this period for women who have not given b irth to th e child. The leave in such cases is provided for th e period of care for a new born child or a child ta k e n over to care because th ese women do not require any h e a lth protection (they have not given birth ) b u t only social protection - necessary care for a child.
The day of tak in g over th e child is th e crucial m om ent for th e comm en cem ent of m a te rn ity leave. The d u ratio n is determ ined for 22 weeks. If a fem ale employee tak es over two or more children, she is en titled to a leave of 31 weeks. However, th e m ate rn ity leave can only be provided u n til this child reaches th e m axim um age of one year. The m ate rn ity leave is m ean t to secure proper care of a new born child during th e first m onths of its life, and it cannot be provided if a w om an tak es over the care of a child older th a n one year, or if she does not use up all of h e r m ate rn ity leave as of th e child’s first birthday.
9 A c o u rt d ecisio n on p lac in g a ch ild in th e c a re of a n o th e r n a tu r a l p e rso n th a n its p a re n ts (u s u a lly a c h ild ’s re la tiv e ) u n d e r S e ctio n 45 A ct no. 94/1963, o n F am ily, a s s u b s e q u e n tly a m e n d ed , a n O S PO D d ecisio n o n th e so-called p re -a d o p tio n c a re (S ectio n 69 F a m ily Act), a c o u rt d ecisio n o n p lac in g a ch ild in to fo ste r c are u n d e r S ectio n 4 5 a th ro u g h S ectio n 45d FA, p re lim in a ry m e a s u re s o f c h ild c a re u n d e r S e ctio n 45 FA a n d S ectio n 7 6 a C ivil P ro c e d u re Code.
10 L. K a lin o v a , K. K a ra s k o v a , N e m o c e n sk e p o jis tm i z a m e s tn a n c u a osob s a m o s ta tn i
C o m m e n c e m e n t o f m a te r n ity le a v e - r ig h t o r du ty?
W ith respect to th e changing social and economic clim ate, it is in te re stin g to consider th e question w h eth er a p reg n a n t wom an is obliged to commence m a te rn ity leave. Over th e p a st tw enty years, women have sta rte d holding h igher working positions, perform ing leading and m an agerial func tions in th e m anagem ent of both s ta te an d p rivate companies, and m atern ity m ay have a considerable effect on th e ir occupation. The com m encem ent of m ate rn ity leave often m eans a significant im pact on th e financial situ ation of a fam ily as well as th e in te rru p tio n of qualification growth, decrease in professional knowledge an d experience as well as in the m ain tenance of w orking potential.
The c u rre n t legislation an d th e legal obligations ensuing from in te rn a tional tre a tie s declare th e rig h t of a wom an for special care during p reg n an cy and protection w ithin labour relations. This rig h t m u st be respected, protected, an d nobody m ay infringe it or tak e it away from a woman. The provision of Section 195 Subsection 1 states: “In relation to the b irth and care of a new born child, a fem ale employee is en titled to m ate rn ity leave...”, an d Subsection 2 states: “A fem ale employee usually commences m atern ity leave from the beginning of th e sixth week before th e presum ed date of ch ildbirth...”. The w ording of th e provision th u s unequivocally lays down th a t a fem ale employee is en titled to commence m a te rn ity leave an d when she can do so a t th e earliest.
For our purposes, we have to distin g u ish two basic situations:
1) a fem ale employee in ten d s to tak e m a te rn ity leave b u t delays its com m encem ent or gets back to work before using up the complete leave, or
2) a fem ale employee decides not to m ake use of h e r rig h t to m ate rn ity leave a t all.
In th e first case above, th e m a te rn ity leave is shortened by th e tim e the fem ale employee commenced it la te r th a n the fixed term , i.e. th e beginning of th e sixth week before th e presum ed date of delivery. If she decides to r e tu rn to work before using up th e complete leave of 28 weeks, possibly sh ortened by the unused period before childbirth, it is necessary to tak e into account th e clause sta te d in Section 195 Subsection 5 Labour Code: “M ater n ity leave in relatio n to childbirth m ust not be sh o rter th a n 14 weeks and m u st not be term in a te d or in te rru p te d before th e expiry of th e period of six m onths from ch ild b irth ”11. This m inim um d u ratio n of m ate rn ity leave is to be in te rp re te d not only as the necessary protection of employed women in
11 Also, it a p p lie s in th e e v e n t t h a t a ch ild is b o rn d e a d or d ies a f te r th e b ir th , th e m o th e r a b a n d o n s th e ch ild or th e ch ild sta y s, d u e to h e a lth re a so n s , a t a n in f a n t h o m e or a n o th e r h e a lth c are facility.
relation to childbirth and p u erp eriu m12 b u t also as the absolute an d general
b an to perform any work whatsoever.
It is questionable w h eth er th is b a n to perform work durin g th e p u erp e rium , along w ith th e m inim um d u ratio n of m ate rn ity leave, can be applied to those fem ale employees who decide not to m ake use of th e ir rig h t to th is tim e off work. If th e Labour Code provides protection from th e perform ance of work to th e women who have given b irth , it is necessary, in our opinion, to apply it to th e women who do not commence m a te rn ity leave (do not notify th e ir em ployer of th e obstacle to work, do not subm it to the em ployer th e prescribed form in proof of th is obstacle, used as th e application for m a te rn i ty benefits) b u t e.g. commence convalescent leave. Thus, it m akes not diffe rence to an em ployer w h eth er an employee commences h e r m ate rn ity leave or not. D uring th e period of six weeks a fte r childbirth, th e em ployer m ust not assign any work to a fem ale employee, w ithin th e to tal u n in te rru p te d d u ratio n of a t least 14 weeks of release from occupational obligation.
As im plied above, we believe th a t it is not contrary to sta tu to ry provi sions if a p reg n a n t employee stays a t work before th e presum ed d ate of delivery even if th e period of six weeks u n til the determ ined date of delivery has expired, an d th e employer assigns work to h e r in accordance w ith th e em ploym ent contract, if such work does not endanger h e r h e a lth and corre sponds to h e r h e a lth s ta tu s and capabilities during pregnancy13. Of course,
such cases will not occur frequently since th e absolute m ajority of women commence m a te rn ity leave w ithin th e defined period; however, th ere are professions w here th e perform ance of work im m ediately before childbirth does not have to form an obstacle. Also, u n til recently (see note no. 6) it was possible to perform work during such period if the w om an’s physician appro ved this. However, it is crucial th a t th e fem ale employee inten ds to use up th e tim e off work in relatio n to childbirth in th e fu tu re (convalescent leave, tim e off w ithout wage com pensation). We u n d e rsta n d th e m om ent of child b irth , in compliance w ith th e cited provision of Section 195 Subsection 2 Labour Code, as the la te s t possible day of com m encem ent of th is leave from work.
However, it should not be ignored th a t during advanced pregnancy, i.e. im m ediately before delivery, th e employee exposes herself, a t h e r own discre tion an d decision, to an increased h e a lth h a z ard both to herself and th e
12 P u e rp e riu m is th e p e rio d in w h ic h a w o m a n - b i r th m o th e r reco v ers fro m th e d e liv e ry a n d its co n seq u en ces, v a rio u s in ju rie s r e la te d to c h ild b irth h e a l, etc. T h erefo re, sh e n e e d s to be p ro te c te d a t th is sta g e o f life m o re th a n a f te r its lap se. A s tr in g e n t p rin cip le a p p lie s say in g t h a t m a te rn ity leav e a n d th e re la te d p ro v isio n o f m a te rn ity b e n e fits c a n n o t b e i n te r r u p te d or te r m in a te d d u rin g th is p e rio d for a n y re a s o n w h atso ev er.
13 C o m p a re J . J a k u b k a , P. H lo u sk o v a , E . H o fm a n n o v a , Z. S c h m ie d , Z. S u b e rto v a , L. T om andlova, L. Trylc, Z a k o n ik p ra ce p r o v a d ic i n a r iz e n i v la d y a d a ls i so u v ise jic i p red p isy
unborn child, even though she m u st be aw are of th e possible consequences an d risks for herself and th e child rela te d to the perform ance of work during advanced pregnancy. Therefore, th e crucial factor will not only be th e diffi culty of work to be perform ed b u t also reasonable consideration of a wom an as to w h ether she m anages to perform h e r work w ith reg ard to h e r h e a lth sta tu s. Thus, each case needs to be approached individually.
In this regard, let me raise quite a “d aring” question as to w hat would h ap p en if dam age to th e w om an’s h e a lth or to th e foetus or a job-related injury occurs, an d th e relatio n of such dam age an d th e perform ance of work durin g pregnancy is proved w hen th e wom an was already supposed to take m ate rn ity leave? W hy could not th e em ployer in th is case be fully or p a rtia l ly released from the liability to dam age?14
Similarly, in th e event th a t a w om an decides to term in a te h e r m ate rn ity leave prem atu rely an d re tu rn to work before th e expiry of th e to ta l period of m ate rn ity leave, th e em ployer is not allowed to reject h e r and refer h e r to th e tim e she has used up th is leave completely. Moreover, th is is rela te d to an o th er question as to w h eth er such action causes certain operational and organizational problem s to th e em ployer if he/she does not expect th e action of th e employee and assum es th a t she will use up th e to tal period of m a te r n ity leave she is en titled to. This is why th ere should be w illingness on both p a rts (especially on th e p a rt of th e employee) to negotiate and inform the o th er contractual p a rty in advance of one’s fu ture intentions. This will p re v en t certain difficulties rela te d to p rem atu re re tu rn to work.
It is completely irrelev an t to consider the rig h t to tak e m ate rn ity leave in relation to tak in g over th e care of a child to su b stitu te m oth er care as th ere exists no m inim um protection period of m ate rn ity leave for these women. This is only provided for th e purpose of h e a lth protection of women in relation to childbirth. Therefore, th e exercise of th e rig h t to m ate rn ity leave w hen a wom an tak es over th e care of a child is h e r free choice.
P r o te c tiv e fu n c tio n o f m a te r n ity le a v e
The p a rtic u la r m anifestations of th e protective function of m ate rn ity leave can be found in the following legal in stitu tes:
14 C om p. th e p ro v isio n o f S ectio n 367 S u b sec tio n 2b) L a b o u r Code. U n d e r th is provision, a n em p lo y er is p a r tia lly re le a s e d from th e lia b ility to a jo b -re la te d in ju ry if i t is p ro v e n t h a t th e em p lo y er h a s in c u rre d a d a m a g e b e c a u se a n em ployee h a d a c te d c o n tra ry to th e com m on w ay of conduct, so it is obvious t h a t a lth o u g h h e /s h e d id n o t v io la te a n y s ta tu to r y or o th e r p ro v i sio n s o r in s tru c tio n s to e n s u re o c cu p atio n al sa fe ty a n d h e a lth p ro tec tio n , h e /s h e a c te d c a re le s sly, a lth o u g h h e /s h e , w ith re g a rd to h is /h e r q u a lifica tio n , m u s t h a v e b e e n a w a re o f th e fa c t t h a t h e /s h e c a n in flic t d a m a g e to h is /h e r h e a lth . C om m on u n w a rin e s s a n d a c tin g e n s u in g from o ccu p a tio n a l r is k c a n n o t be c o n sid ere d a s a c a re le ss action.
• leave from work (Section 191 Labour Code),
• dism issal b a n (Section 53 in rel. to Section 54 Labour Code),
• b an of im m ediate term in a tio n of em ploym ent (Section 55 Subsection 2 L abour Code),
• re tu rn from m a te rn ity leave (Section 47 L abour Code), • m aterial security during m a te rn ity leave15.
These areas reflect th e EC D irective on th e equal tre a tm e n t for m en and women, and th e EC directive on p a re n ta l leave16 because th e protective function also applies to m en who tak e p a re n ta l leave, w hich has th e sam e d u ratio n as the m ate rn ity leave a wom an is en titled to tak e (28 or 37 weeks), beginning w ith th e b irth of th e child.
F u rth er, we will only deal briefly w ith th e leave from work and the re tu rn from m ate rn ity leave because th e oth er aspects of women protection are beyond the scope of th is text.
L ea v e from w o rk
M atern ity leave is a tim e off work th a t every em ployer m u st provide to an employee in relatio n to h e r advance pregnancy, childbirth and care of th e new born child. It is a legal claim of every such w om an to a leave from work w ithout being obliged to apply for th e provision of m a te rn ity leave se p a ra te ly or fulfil fu rth e r conditions, it is sufficient to prove th e existence of the obstacle to work.
The employee only inform s the em ployer about th e com m encem ent of m ate rn ity leave usually by indicating th is date in a prescribed form, which is used to exercise th e claim to m ate ria l security during this leave (m atern ity pay), and which is issued by th e w om an’s a tten d in g physician, determ ining th e presum ed date of childbirth. Of course, different forms of notification or earlier notification of pregnancy are not excluded - such action is welcome and beneficial, it reflects the correct and good relations betw een th e employee and th e employer, and brings legal safeguard to the sphere of employment.
U nder Section 191 Labour Code, an em ployer is obliged to excuse the absence of a fem ale employee from work during m a te rn ity leave because this co nstitutes one of th e s ta tu to ry provided, significant personal obstacles to work on the employee’s p art.
15 D u rin g m a te rn ity leav e w o m e n a re p ro v id ed m a te rn ity b e n e fits from th e social se c u rity sy ste m , u n d e r th e co n d itio n s la id dow n in S e ctio n 32 ff. A ct no. 187/2006 Coll., o n S ick n ess In s u ra n c e , a s s u b s e q u e n tly a m e n d ed .
16 E C D irectiv e no. 76/207/E C , on th e im p le m e n ta tio n o f th e p rin cip le o f e q u a l tr e a tm e n t for m e n a n d w o m e n a s re g a rd s access to e m p lo y m en t, v o c atio n al tr a in in g a n d p ro m o tio n , a n d w o rk in g co n d itio n s, D irectiv e no. 96/34/E C , on p a r e n ta l leave.
The m ethod of notification of th e com m encem ent of m ate rn ity leave is not form ally provided for and it is not determ ined w hen a w om an is obliged to inform h e r em ployer of th is fact a t the latest. In th e Czech Republic, p reg n a n t women have more rig h ts and autom atic protection reg ardless of th e m om ent th e ir em ployer learn s about th e ir pregnancy, w hich is different in o ther countries.
R e tu r n from m a te r n ity le a v e
As reg ard s th e legal safeguard of employees, th e obligation of th e em ployer rela te d to th e re tu rn of an employee to work after th e extinction of one of th e defined obstacles due to which th e employee could not objectively perform work an d was excused from work is very im portant. This obligation of an em ployer also applies to th e situ a tio n w hen a w om an re tu rn s to work a fte r th e end of m ate rn ity leave.
In accordance w ith th e provision of Section 47 L abour Code, an employer is obliged to place a n employee retu rn in g to work after the end of m atern ity leave to h e r previous job an d workplace. This provision rep resen ts a n ad v an tage for the employees who tak e m ate rn ity leave as opposed to those who also tak e p a re n ta l leave17 because th e law g u aran tees them th e ir previous
job a t th e previous workplace. If th is is not possible because th e previous job or w orkplace were cancelled, th e em ployer will place them in accordance w ith th e em ploym ent contract.
C o n c lu sio n
The fixed d u ratio n of m a te rn ity leave in our country is in compliance w ith th e E uropean Social C h a rte r18 an d Convention no. 103 on M aternity
P rotection1 9. The m inim um d u ratio n of tim e off work for th e purpose of h e a lth protection of a wom an a t th e tim e of childbirth, im m ediately before it an d durin g the puerperiu m is fixed for 12 weeks.
17 I f a fem ale em ployee r e tu r n s to w o rk a f te r th e e n d o f p a r e n ta l leav e (m ax. u n til th e age of th r e e o f th e child), th e e m p lo y er is obliged to a s s ig n w o rk to h e r in acco rd an ce w ith em p lo y m en t c o n tra c t, i.e. also a t a n o th e r w o rk p lace a n d o th e r w o rk t h a n before c h ild b irth , yet on ly w ith in th e s o rt of w o rk a n d a t th e place of w o rk p e rfo rm a n ce s tip u la te d in th e em p lo y m e n t c o n tra c t (S ectio n 38 S u b sec tio n 1a) L a b o u r Code).
18 N o tific atio n no. 14/2000 Coll., on E u ro p e a n S ocial C h a rte r.
19 A co n v en tio n o f th e I n te r n a tio n a l L a b o u r O rg a n iz a tio n . H ow ever, it h a s n o t b een ra tifie d by th e C zech R epublic so far, a n d th e re fo re, it is n o t p a r t o f o u r leg al sy stem . T h is co n v en tio n p ro v id es th e m in im u m d u r a tio n o f m a te rn ity leav e - a lw ay s in th e d u ra tio n o f a t le a s t 12 w eek s. V irtually, in a ll E u ro p e a n c o u n tries , in c lu d in g th e C zech R epublic, th e d u ra tio n is lo n g er a t p re s e n t.
The d u ratio n of m ate rn ity leave differs from country to country - it depends on m any factors, especially th e dem ographic (developm ent of popu lation), historical an d economic ones, and on th e trad itio n s of th e given country. The Czech Republic and a few other countries (e.g. Slovakia and Sweden) hold worldwide prim acy in th e ex ten t of m ate rn ity leave. Over the y ears, m a te rn ity leave has been prolonged several tim es in our country b u t it has alw ays by far exceeded th e general sta n d a rd in th e d u ratio n and in ten sity of protection.
Along w ith th e fact th a t th e legislation provides for longer m a te rn ity in th e event of m ultiple childbirth, it can be sta te d th a t employed women in our country are provided w ith a high level of protection during advanced p re gnancy and m aternity. N evertheless, we can find c e rtain aspects for im pro vem ent and alteration.
In case a wom an does not exercise h e r s ta tu to ry rig h t to m a te rn ity leave (takes e.g. convalescence leave a t the tim e of childbirth), th ere should be a special b an to perform any work w ith in six weeks after childbirth. The provision of Section 195 Subsection 5 L abour Code only covers th is issue in relation to m a te rn ity leave, and some employers or employees m ight in te r p ret it as if it did not apply to them .
As has been indicated above, th e law m akers should lay down the periods to be adhered to by an employee w ith respect to h e r employer w hen exerci sing h e r rig h t to tak e m ate rn ity leave, w hen notifying him /her of h e r p re gnancy, of th e date of com m encem ent of m ate rn ity leave and end of this leave. E.g. in th e event of p rem atu re re tu rn to work during m ate rn ity leave, th e w om an would have to notify th e em ployer of th is fact one m onth in advance, th e inform ation of h e r pregnancy would have to be provided before th e com pletion of th e 1st trim ester, etc.
S tr e s z c z e n ie
Urlop m a cierzyń sk i i k w estie p r a w n e z tym zw ią za n e
S łow a kluczow e: u rlo p m a c ierz y ń sk i, ciąża, p raw o pracy, p ra w a kobiet.
Urlop m acierzyński je s t tradycyjną in sty tu cją ochrony kobiet p racu ją cych w okresie ciąży, połogu i opieki n ad nowo narodzonym dzieckiem. W odpowiedzi n a zm iany społeczne (rów noupraw nienie płci, em ancypację kobiet, rosnącą rolę ojca) regulacje wspólnotowe pozw alają również pracow nikowi płci męskiej w pełni osobiście uczestniczyć w opiece nad dzieckiem od m om entu jego n arodzin do określonego wieku. Czas trw an ia urlopu m acie rzyńskiego w Republice Czeskiej wynosi 28 tygodni (w przypadku
wieloracz-ków 37 tygodni). O piekujący się dzieckiem m ają praw o do czasu wolnego w wym iarze 22 (31) tygodni.
A utorka a rty k u łu zastan aw ia się, czy rozpoczęcie urlopu m acierzyńskie go je s t praw em , czy też obowiązkiem pracow nika. R ozpatruje też możliwe konsekwencje praw ne tychże regulacji. Pracodaw ca je s t zobowiązany pozwo lić pracownikowi n a opuszczenie pracy. Zakazane je s t zwolnienie kobiety w trak cie ciąży lub urlopu m acierzyńskiego (z w yjątkiem przyczyn organiza cyjnych) oraz natychm iastow e zakończenie z a tru d n ien ia w tym okresie. Po powrocie z urlopu m acierzyńskiego pracow nik m a prawo do wykonyw ania tej sam ej pracy. Pracodaw ca je s t zobowiązany przypisać m u te sam e zadania na tym sam ym stanow isku. Ta regulacja p raw na je s t korzystniejsza dla pracow ników przebyw ających n a urlopie m acierzyńskim niż tych n a urlopie rodzi cielskim (aż do ukończenia 3 roku przez dziecko) — w przypadku urlopu m acierzyńskiego prawo gw aran tuje pracownikowi przywrócenie do pracy n a tym sam ym stanow isku. Podczas urlopu m acierzyńskiego kobiety korzystają z zabezpieczenia społecznego w postaci dodatków m acierzyńskich.
