Apprenticeships and Maternity Leave

[NHAccountant]

Good afternoon,

We have an employee who is completing a qualification via an apprenticeship and is about to start maternity leave, they have nearly finished the apprenticeship/qualification, but the remaining study would take them beyond the start of maternity leave - they would have finished by now if there hadn't been some interruption to their study due to pregnancy related health issues.

They requested a study break from their apprenticeship programme for maternity leave and this was initially approved by the provider. However, the provider has now come back and said that the break cannot be approved due to having already passed the intended completion date. Although they can still complete the technical qualification, they won't be able to get certification for the apprenticeship, meaning the additional work place experience and work based learning will go unrecognised and they can't access apprenticeship funding.

Due to the delay in completion and the requested break both being pregnancy related, i can't help but see this as unfair treatment due to to her pregnancy. I've done some online research, but most of what I have found is related to apprentice rights to maternity leave from employment as apposed to their rights relating to provision of the study/apprenticeship programme. Can anyone advise and/or point me in the right direction?

Thank you in advance...

 

[IanSuth]

Do you mind if I copy and paste this qu. into an HR forum I am in - to see if anyone there has any pointers ?

 

[NHAccountant]

Hi, please do, thank you.

 

[Lisa Thomas]

Maybe one for @Newchodge?

 

[Newchodge]

Maybe one for @Newchodge?

I'm afraid not. This would be discrimination by an education (training provider), not by an employer.

 

[Newchodge]

This may he4lp https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/education/taking-action-about-discrimination-in-education/

 

[IanSuth]

I have reposted in a CIPD forum and will post here the advice rather than sending as a PM in case of use to others going fwd

 

[IanSuth]

I have this non answer - but it seems nobody has come across the same issue even in a forum for HR professionals run by the governing body

I no longer keep up with current apprenticeship funding rules, but have absolutely no doubt that these basic principles will still have to apply:
(a) that apprenticeships shouldn’t be of any fixed period of duration (minimum periods excepted) and
(b) that maternity / maternity leave shouldn’t end up being a detriment to the apprentice.

There must be some other undisclosed or misunderstood reason why there are potential funding difficulties and the learning provider involved should be asked to clarify the reasons why and explain how they might possibly comply with the above fundamental principles

 

[paulears]

I suspect this is due to validation periods. Most education now uses systems that are validated for a period of 5 years - apprentice systems picked up a very similar framework. The idea is that somebody can not complete at the appropriate time, but can be sort of back squadded onto the next rolling term - this falls down when at the end of the validation period as the funding agreements simply stop. Sometimes they can go onto the new, and often tweaked content version in it's first, or even testing year - but if funding rules are different, the provider cannot get paid, and the apprentice cannot get signed off as complete. There is normally sufficient notice that people are aware when it's the last year before death. If the PM cuts all the uni courses, the same thing will happen. The roll over to the next cohort cannot happen when there is no next cohort. It's quite common - and usually solutions can be found, but with many providers being just that - providers with funding from the people verifying the standards, they just can't do it when the people signing off, cannot sign off. The usual health rules for continuation are great, but only if the validation system is open.

 

[Newchodge]

I suspect this is due to validation periods. Most education now uses systems that are validated for a period of 5 years - apprentice systems picked up a very similar framework. The idea is that somebody can not complete at the appropriate time, but can be sort of back squadded onto the next rolling term - this falls down when at the end of the validation period as the funding agreements simply stop. Sometimes they can go onto the new, and often tweaked content version in it's first, or even testing year - but if funding rules are different, the provider cannot get paid, and the apprentice cannot get signed off as complete. There is normally sufficient notice that people are aware when it's the last year before death. If the PM cuts all the uni courses, the same thing will happen. The roll over to the next cohort cannot happen when there is no next cohort. It's quite common - and usually solutions can be found, but with many providers being just that - providers with funding from the people verifying the standards, they just can't do it when the people signing off, cannot sign off. The usual health rules for continuation are great, but only if the validation system is open.

I'm sorry, I don't understand much of that, but, basically, are you saying it is a question of the computer saying no?

 

[IanSuth]

I'm sorry, I don't understand much of that, but, basically, are you saying it is a question of the computer saying no?

Sounds like

Cohort A must complete by year X
Cohort B must complete by year X+1

thus an apprentice from cohort A who delays completion will just be dealt with like a Cohort B person for ease

Issue arises when a Cohort B person delays and there is no CohortC as the systems are inflexible and as you say "computer says no"

Interestingly a similar thing happened to my daughter - she repeated yr 1 of her physio degree or rather she had to take 1 module (respiratory physio) that her and many other failed due to remote learning in lockdown and best lecturers being off saving lives. The uni didnt charge any tuition they just had to cover their accommodation. However there is an NHS bursary scheme and the computers didnt speak right so she was paid that, they have no mechanism for paying back so just said "we wont pay it next year - that'll be fine" - then that cam e along (which is this year) and a placement at a hospital was sorted (she has to do 1000 hours unpaid as part of the course) - she is meant to claim back travel costs - but currently she can't as she is not in receipt of funding this year as far as computer is concerned so it is therefore impossible she has any allowable expenses. - they are trying to figure that one out for her and about 15 others as I write (and she has just finished her second placement)

 

[Newchodge]

Sounds like

Cohort A must complete by year X
Cohort B must complete by year X+1

thus an apprentice from cohort A who delays completion will just be dealt with like a Cohort B person for ease

Issue arises when a Cohort B person delays and there is no CohortC as the systems are inflexible and as you say "computer says no"

Interestingly a similar thing happened to my daughter - she repeated yr 1 of her physio degree or rather she had to take 1 module (respiratory physio) that her and many other failed due to remote learning in lockdown and best lecturers being off saving lives. The uni didnt charge any tuition they just had to cover their accommodation. However there is an NHS bursary scheme and the computers didnt speak right so she was paid that, they have no mechanism for paying back so just said "we wont pay it next year - that'll be fine" - then that cam e along (which is this year) and a placement at a hospital was sorted (she has to do 1000 hours unpaid as part of the course) - she is meant to claim back travel costs - but currently she can't as she is not in receipt of funding this year as far as computer is concerned so it is therefore impossible she has any allowable expenses. - they are trying to figure that one out for her and about 15 others as I write (and she has just finished her second placement)

A manual over-ride in order to comply with the law for the OP would appear to be needed.

 

[NHAccountant]

Hi,

Thank you for all the replies, much appreciated.

The apprenticeship in question can run for up to 24 months, the employee was 17 months in at the time they started maternity leave and would have completed by the end of August.

Thanks again

 

[IanSuth]

I did just additionally get this reply

Maybe see if the provider can provide more information about why they consider that the treatment doesn't constitute discrimination (there's Equality Act guidance for service providers and for education providers here:https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/equality-act-guidance#h3)

 

[NHAccountant]

Hi,

A little overdue, but after some pushing with the learning provider, they have now clarified their position.

In general, a study break and therefore an extension to the apprenticeship would normally be possible. The training provider have previously been very flexible in allowing extensions for their apprentices, but this wasn't having a positive impact on actual completions. As a result they have been given a restriction on allowing apprentices anything more than a six month extension beyond their original completion date.

The apprentice in question would have completed within two (poss. three) months of their original completion date and the only reason for going beyond was due to health issues associated with their pregnancy.

It's frustrating in principle but doubly so as the restriction is of the training providers own making. I'm in the process of reviewing this with other training providers.

Thanks again,
Neil

 

[Newchodge]

Hi,

A little overdue, but after some pushing with the learning provider, they have now clarified their position.

In general, a study break and therefore an extension to the apprenticeship would normally be possible. The training provider have previously been very flexible in allowing extensions for their apprentices, but this wasn't having a positive impact on actual completions. As a result they have been given a restriction on allowing apprentices anything more than a six month extension beyond their original completion date.

The apprentice in question would have completed within two (poss. three) months of their original completion date and the only reason for going beyond was due to health issues associated with their pregnancy.

It's frustrating in principle but doubly so as the restriction is of the training providers own making. I'm in the process of reviewing this with other training providers.

Thanks again,
Neil

Do they claim exemption from pregnancy realted discrimination? If so, on what grounds?

You say 'they have been given a restriction. By whom?

 

[NHAccountant]

Do they claim exemption from pregnancy realted discrimination? If so, on what grounds?

You say 'they have been given a restriction. By whom?

Hi, thanks for the quick reply.

They've not made any point on discrimination, it's a point I'm taking up with our HR department. The restriction has come from the Education and Skill Funding Agency.

 

[Newchodge]

Hi, thanks for the quick reply.

They've not made any point on discrimination, it's a point I'm taking up with our HR department. The restriction has come from the Education and Skill Funding Agency.

When was the refusal made>? There is a time limit on discrimination action.

 

[Jeff FV]

A little overdue, but after some pushing with the learning provider, they have now clarified their position.

Sorry to be so flippant on what is an important topic and thread, but your punning skills are top notch!

 

[NHAccountant]

When was the refusal made>? There is a time limit on discrimination action.

The refusal was made circa eight weeks ago.

The learning provider has stated this is a restriction placed on them by the funding agency ("hands tied"), does the learning provider still have a responsibility/liability to ensure it's service is non-discriminatory?

 

[Newchodge]

The refusal was made circa eight weeks ago.

The learning provider has stated this is a restriction placed on them by the funding agency ("hands tied"), does the learning provider still have a responsibility/liability to ensure it's service is non-discriminatory?

Yes. Tell the apprentice to speak to ACAS without delay. I believe they have a role in education provider discrimination. If they don't they should be able to suggest who does. The deadline is 3 calendar months from the act of discrimination, so it needs doing now!