The case of the pregnant employee: Ember's services with a consultancy was terminated after she became pregnant. She felt that the firm was unsympathetic towards its employees and fired them to avoid paying for their maternity leave

Today's Manager, Dec-Jan, 2008 by Tan Chee Teik

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

WHEN EMBER Seet, 27, joined Big Four Consultancy as an auditor, she was very happy in her work as the management was pro-family and the staff members worked as one happy family.

During the employment interview with the managing partner, Lim Ooi Keat, 48, and manager, Ambrose de Souza, 40, she was assured that she would work five days a week and there was little overtime work.

"That's great," said Ember. "I have been married for two years and my husband and I plan to start a family."

Ambrose said: "You will fit well into our environment. We look after the interests of our employees. We help them in their career development. Why, we even have two days of paternity leave."

"Yes, the strength of our company is in its employees," said Ooi Keat. "We ensure that they get the best medical care, we pay for their recreation, and we take an interest in their family life. A worker who is happy at home will be very productive at work. Who can say that accountants have no heart? I think it's bankers who have no heart when it concerns money matters."

In her work, Ember had to be at the offices of the clients most of the time checking their financial records. Most of the time, she worked with a team of four or five auditors from her company and there was a lot to learn from her manager Ambrose.

Six months after joining Big Four, Ember became pregnant and requested Ambrose to give her some time off for regular health check-ups. Ambrose was supportive and suggested that her workload be reduced a little. He also assigned her to audit firms that have accounts that are less complex. She was very grateful to him for being so considerate.

Emergency Meeting

About three weeks later, Ooi Keat called an emergency meeting of the division. He revealed that the accounting firm had lost over five large clients and have taken on work in Indonesia and Thailand as replacement.

He said: "It's very competitive in this industry. Even with the new clients in Indonesia and Thailand, we won't be as profitable as before. We have no choice but to downsize. Many of you will have to travel frequently except those who are expecting. That includes myself. Your managers will let you know who will be affected by the downsizing by five o'clock today."

Ambrose was very apologetic when he gave Ember the pink slip that day. "I'm so sad that it had to be you and Augustine. I tried my best to retain both of you but I was overruled."

Ember was close to tears, she said: "I'm sure it's because of my pregnancy that I am a victim of the retrenchment. This company is supposed to be pro-family."

"Don't take it so badly," said Ambrose. Augustine and yourself were the last to join my department. It's a case of last-in-first-out. You'll be paid one month's salary in lieu of notice and an additional $500 as compensation."

"At this stage of pregnancy, who will employ me?" asked Ember. "I should have stayed with my previous employer. They will be more sympathetic."

When she reached home, she immediately checked the Ministry of Manpower, MOM, Web site about maternity leave. She learnt that under the Children Development Co-Savings Act, an employee is entitled to maternity benefits if the employee has worked for the employer for at least 180 days before the child's birth.

The government guidelines state: "An eligible female employee is entitled to absent herself from work for four weeks immediately be-fore and eight weeks immediately after delivery, totalling 12 weeks.

"An employer is prohibited from dismissing an employee who has taken maternity leave. However, this will not apply to the extended four weeks of maternity leave if it is taken flexibly over a period of time. An employer who does so will be liable to a fine and/or imprisonment.

"If a notice of dismissal is given without sufficient cause within three months of a female employee's confinement, the employer must pay her the maternity benefits that she would otherwise be eligible for.

"Employer cannot employ a female employee at any time during the four weeks immediately following her confinement. An employer cannot contract out the maternity benefit."

Questions to Ponder:

Have Ember's employment rights been violated? If so, can she take legal action against her employer? Was there a breach of contract?

Are there any ways that Ambrose can help Ember further? Should the MOM's maternity guidelines be improved?