Related Articles
A Royal Mail postal worker has been awarded more than £3,000 in compensation after an employment tribunal ruled it had unlawfully denied her unpaid parental leave.
The London central tribunal heard that Sylwia Gwiazda requested two weeks of unpaid parental leave so she could extend an August trip to Poland.
However, her line manager, Mr Tanveer, declined the request, explaining that the team was already under pressure during the busy holiday period and approving Gwiazda’s leave would mean having more than the permitted six employees off at once.
The legal rights of working parents
Balancing act: how employers can support working parents over the summer holidays
All change for statutory unpaid parental leave?
While Royal Mail later offered alternative dates, the tribunal found it took 38 days – instead of the statutory seven – to issue a formal counter notice, meaning the company had “lost the right” to postpone her request under the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999.
Gwiazda was awarded £3,700.77, comprising £700.77 in financial losses and £3,000 for injury to feelings.
Background
Gwiazda has been employed by Royal Mail as a postal delivery worker since 19 June 2006 and is the mother of three children, two of whom are under 18.
In January 2024, she informally asked Tanveer for two weeks of unpaid leave to be taken immediately before her already-approved annual leave in late August, allowing her to spend a month in Poland with her children.
She had secured annual leave for 19 August to 1 September 2024 and wanted two extra unpaid weeks to take place immediately before this period.
However, despite several reminders, Tanveer verbally refused the parental leave, saying her extended absence would make it difficult for the unit to meet its universal service obligation (USO), which requires Royal Mail to deliver letters six days per week.
On 19 February, Gwiazda submitted a formal written request for leave from 5 to 18 August and followed up on 6 March after receiving no response.
Tanveer replied two days later but avoided making a decision, instead stating that approving the request would push the unit above its six-person leave threshold.
Thirty-eight days after her formal request, on 28 March, Tanveer refused the August dates and offered three alternative periods in September and October – all during term time.
On 9 April, Gwiazda responded that she could not take her children out of school and required the August dates to complete a month-long trip via car. Tanveer then offered four new slots in October and November, including one during half term.
On 11 June, she filed a grievance against the postponement. A meeting was held that day, and her claim was denied on 21 June.
She then filed an appeal on 25 June. During the appeal, Royal Mail admitted that it had failed to react within the necessary seven-day timeframe, but stated that the decision remained “substantively sound”, owing to USO pressures.
The appeal was denied, though the organisation agreed that an HR adviser had wrongly described unpaid parental leave as being for “unforeseen reasons”.
By negotiating with her colleagues, Gwiazda was able to secure an additional week of annual leave in early August, allowing her to spend three weeks in Poland.
The tribunal also noted that the prolonged dispute contributed to a deterioration in Gwiazda’s mental health, leading to a period of sickness absence from September to December 2024.
Judge’s comments
Employment judge Clark ruled that Royal Mail had unlawfully denied Gwiazda the parental leave she was entitled to, emphasising that the employer lost its right to postpone the leave by failing to meet the seven-day deadline set out in law.
Postponement because of business interruption can only be permitted in narrow circumstances and requires written notice. Royal Mail’s lengthy delay represented a breach of the rules, meaning it had “lost the right” to postpone the leave, making its refusal unlawful.
The tribunal described the delay as “significant” and unjustified and noted that an organisation of Royal Mail’s size, with a dedicated HR function, should have identified and corrected the error during the grievance process.
It also revealed that Gwiazda had provided her manager a link to government guidance that explicitly stated the seven-day limit. “There is really no excuse for the delay,” Clark said, “still less a complete failure to respond to her first email.” No apologies were given.
Lawyers’ comments
Niamh Hogg, employment lawyer at Freeths, said the case was a reminder for employers to adhere to statutory time restrictions when dealing with employee requests.
“Whether this relates to unpaid parental leave, flexible working or other statutory entitlements, employers must understand both the basis on which they can refuse or postpone a request and the strict deadlines for doing so,” she explained.
Hogg added that statutory timeframes were not optional. Even if postponement may be reasonable, failure to act within the required period can result in liability. She advised businesses to ensure managers were trained on statutory entitlements and that HR processes enabled timely responses.
Lee Ashwood, partner at Browne Jacobson, said parental leave was a statutory entitlement and “employers must follow the regulations to the letter”. He added that organisations wishing to postpone parental leave must show undue disruption, consult with the employee and issue a timely written notice.
Natalie Parkinson, head of employment litigation at AfterAthena, said the dispute might have been prevented if Royal Mail had recognised the type of request sooner and processed it within the legally required time limit.
“Leave requests can be complex, so it is important to understand the nature of the request at the point of receipt and seek advice in a timely manner if you are not sure how to deal with it,” she advised.
For more information, read the CIPD’s factsheet on maternity, paternity and adoption rights in the UK
Source link
