You
are here: home » info » Elas Articles » British Bosses Running Scared of Natasha Kaplinsky Style Pregnancies
British Bosses Running Scared of Natasha Kaplinsky Style Pregnancies
More than 50 per cent of bosses take into account the chances of a new member of staff falling pregnant before employing them – a survey has found.
And 76 per cent of bosses say they would not take on a new recruit if they knew they were going to fall pregnant within six months of starting.
The findings, from experts Employment Law Advisory Services (ELAS), comes in the wake of £1 million newsreader Natasha Kaplinsky telling her new bosses at Channel Five News that she was pregnant just weeks after starting.
ELAS commissioned the survey of 1,100 company bosses and personnel managers after finding that they were dealing with an increase in the number of cases involving pregnancy and new employees. These included cases where candidates were asked in interview if they had plans for a family – something banned under sex discrimination law – and jobs withdrawn between interview and starting the post because of a pregnancy – again a practice that is banned.
The UK-wide survey of male and female bosses and personnel managers found that during the selection process 52 per cent of bosses will weigh up the chances of a candidate getting pregnant taking into account age and whether they have just got married – although a direct question to a perspective member of staff cannot be asked.
The ELAS survey found that 68 per cent would like more rights to quiz candidates about their plans for a family. This could be related to the fact that one in five said they had employed someone and found out within three months of them starting that the new member of staff was expecting a baby.
Only five per cent of the bosses have employed someone knowing the candidate is pregnant and 86 per cent said they would feel cheated if someone started a job and announced within weeks they were pregnant.
Peter Mooney, head of consultancy at ELAS, said that despite legislation to outlaw discrimination UK bosses would still shy away from employing a candidate who was pregnant.
“It is a very dangerous area and you simply cannot ask the question about plans for a family in an interview. For many bosses it is down to the bottom line – a pregnant member of staff will cost money. However a visit to a tribunal can be even more costly.
“The fact that almost 8 in 10 of those we surveyed would not employ someone if they knew they were pregnant shows that discrimination is bound to happen if it is obvious that a candidate is expecting a baby.
“In most cases the best candidate will still be the best candidate if they have to take time off for maternity leave. There is always a chance that a male employee could be off because of illness so it is best to base decisions on other things rather than the threat of a maternity leave,” he said.
For more information contact Ed Stearns, Mason Media, 0207 3951104 or ed@masonmedia.co.uk
.jpg)