If an employee is receiving SMP from one employer and, at the same time, is working for another employer, is her entitlement to SMP affected?

A woman's entitlement to statutory maternity pay (SMP) may be affected if she is being paid SMP by one employer but works at the same time for another employer. Her situation depends on when she started in her other job, or jobs.

The answer to the question depends on whether she was working for both, or all, of her employers in the week in which her entitlement to SMP was decided, i.e. the 15th week before her baby is due. If she has two or more jobs in the qualifying week, she may qualify to receive SMP with one or more of them; it depends on whether she meets the qualifying conditions in each of the jobs. If she still works for one or more of those employers when she starts to be paid SMP by one of them, her entitlement to SMP is not affected. The condition is that she was working for all of the employers in the qualifying week.

Example: A woman works for three employers in the qualifying week. She qualifies for SMP with Employer A but does not qualify with Employer B or with Employer C because her average earnings are not high enough. She gives up the job with Employer C before she starts maternity leave but continues to work for Employer B while receiving SMP from Employer A. Her entitlement to SMP from Employer A is not affected.

However, if she starts work for another employer after her qualifying week and is still working for that employer after confinement, she loses all remaining entitlement to SMP with any employer with whom she otherwise qualifies. She is not entitled to SMP from any employer for any weeks in the maternity pay period during which she works for an employer for whom she was not working during the qualifying week. There is no section on form SMP1 to cover this situation and one should not be issued if it arises. The woman will not be able to claim Maternity Allowance.

Example: A woman works for two employers in the qualifying week. She qualifies for SMP with Employer A but does not qualify with Employer B. She takes another job with Employer C after the qualifying week but before the start of maternity leave and continues to work for Employer C into the maternity pay period. She starts her maternity leave four weeks before her baby is born. She receives four weeks of SMP but, as soon the baby is born, Employer A must stop paying SMP. Even if the woman stops working for Employer C, the employer may not resume the payments.

If a woman starts working for another employer after confinement, any employer that is paying her SMP must stop the payments for the duration of the maternity pay period. The woman is required by law to inform the employer that is paying the SMP, in writing if the employer requests it, of the date on which she started working for another employer and she must do this within seven days of starting the new job.

If she does not inform her employer, she is receiving SMP fraudulently. The overpayment of SMP is not the employer's liability in this situation. Some employers impose a contractual responsibility on employers to inform them if they have other employment. It would be sensible to advise any woman taking paid maternity leave that she risks losing entitlement to SMP if she works for another employer after confinement.

The reasoning behind this seemingly unreasonable rule is that the purpose of paid maternity leave is for a woman to care for her new child without having to work. If she deliberately takes on a new job after qualifying for SMP and works for that employer after confinement, she forfeits entitlement to SMP with any of her employers.

These same rules also apply to employees taking SPP and SAP. For "qualifying week", read "matching week" as appropriate. Although the restriction for SMP only applies to weeks in the maternity pay period after confinement, it applies to any weeks during the paternity or adoption pay periods.

There is no restriction on working for another employer during additional (unpaid) maternity leave.

Discuss this news item in the PayPerShop Forum

...back to 17 December 2004