Proposition 53K0632

Projet de loi modifiant la législation en ce qui concerne la protection du congé de paternité.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sonja Becq, Nahima Lanjri, Stefaan Vercamer

Submission date

Nov. 19, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work parental leave paternity leave

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

April 7, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I will refer to this in the written report.

The proposal was unanimously approved by Ms. Lanjri. An amendment submitted by Ms Fonck was adopted.

It was agreed with our N-VA colleagues that their proposed amendments would be considered later.

I would like to point out a language error in Article 3. There is a saying in French: “L’avertissement écrit de l’employeur”. It should be “Writing to the Employer”. For the Dutch translation, it must be “to the employer” and not “by the employer”.

You suppose that the Chamber is of agreement to accept that it is a correction of the text. (The Assentiment)

We can also be quite brief on this bill. Juridically and in principle, of course, nothing can be brought against the argument of equal treatment of men and women. I have two comments, which I also made in the committee.

First, as a doctor, I would like to emphasize that in pregnancy and childbirth there is no similar situation between men and women if we consider the situation purely physically and functionally. Pregnancy and childbirth are carried out physically by the female partner.

For men, only a changed social circumstance, more specifically paternity, plays a role, for which they can get ten days of leave. For women, on the other hand, the postpartum rest is also inspired to capture the physical consequences of pregnancy and childbirth.

Secondly, we must also be aware that the bill may have a limited application. Although any dismissal of a man or a midwife would also give the right to ten days of birth leave, in practice this will happen very rarely. An average employee becomes pregnant twice. You become a father twice. This means two times three days of paternity leave at the expense of the employer. The remaining days will be reimbursed by the health insurance.

If an employer dismisses his employee then it will have to be for another reason.

However, it is good that the bill provides clarity. Thus, future fathers can take their ten days of birth leave with peace of mind. We leave it to them to fill them usefully. Therefore, we support the proposal.

The introduction of a dismissal protection in the case of paternity leave implements the European directive which provides that men taking paternity leave should enjoy the right to then resume their old job or to start work in an equivalent job.

In the present proposal, the following dismissal protection is chosen: a fixed compensation of 3 months gross wage. An adequate social protection of workers is of paramount importance. It is obvious that an employee who takes maternity or paternity leave can count on dismissal protection. In this sense, we welcome the bill.

However, it seems obvious to us that women and men are entitled to equal protection from dismissal when taking the leave they are entitled to after the birth of a child. In the case of maternity leave, there is a dismissal protection of a fixed allowance of 6 months gross salary. In the case of maternity leave which is converted into paternity leave in the event of death or hospitalization of the mother of the newborn, just during the meeting with bill number 363 the dismissal compensation was increased from 3 to 6 months. In our opinion, also the man who takes paternity leave should be able to appeal a dismissal protection in the form of a flat-rate compensation of 6 months gross salary. We will therefore submit legislative work in that regard. (Applause of Applause)

Mrs. Van Eetvelde, I congratulate you on your maidenspeech.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with Mr. De Block’s remarks because, as she said, the leave was not granted for the same reasons.

We know how important the bond between the child and the father is, but we can hope – and I hope Mrs. De Block will agree with me – that paternity leave will also support the wife from a psychological and physiological point of view following the birth.

I would like to return to an important point. Everyone summarized how the discussions went. This proposal goes in the right direction.

But it is important not to get future fathers – this is what amendments have been introduced – to warn their employer at the last minute. On the contrary, as soon as they know the presumed date of birth and know when they will take this leave, they must be able to indicate it to their employer and this, so that the work can be organized in the best way within the company. In my opinion, this is very important.

I think this bill is of common sense. Not having provided this protection for fathers taking paternity leave was indeed a forgetfulness.

Here, fathers are put on an equal footing in terms of protection against dismissal.

However, the real workplace if one wants to move towards more equality, true equality, will be when, after a birth, one will see a leave as long granted to men as to women. This will be a real advance. It is known that the length of maternity leave is an argument for not engaging young women. Many employers are afraid of this. When this leave is as long for men as for women, it will contribute to a better connection between the child and the father and it will finally be possible to eliminate this gender discrimination on the labour market.