Maternity leave and return to work in Australia--accessibility and use in a state utility.

Abstract

The paper examines access to anal use of maternity leave anal return to work policies in a large organisation. The analysis is set within the context of evidence from a recent national survey which illustrates the combinations of paid and unpaid leave arrangements utilised by Australian mothers around the birth of a child. The case study provides insight into these combinations and shows how the capacity to access the most advantageous arrangements varies within a particular organisational setting. Employees who are closer to head office, who have developed a good knowledge of current policies and organisational history, and who are in a position to negotiate effectively, tend to be relatively advantaged. However, we suggest that underlying the complexity of arrangements and links between availability, perceived accesstbd ty and employee use' of these policies (Budd and Mumford 2006), are deeper barriers, including internalisation and acceptance of work-life tension by female employees.

Introduction

'Family-friendly' policies, which typically include maternity leave and flexible return to work provisions, are receiving increased attention as tensions heighten around work--family pressure associated with rising female participation rates, declining fertility rates and labour market shortages. Whereas most countries now have public policies designed to alleviate some of these stresses, Australia (and the USA) rely more heavily on organisational level policies and informal practices. The current Australian literature effectively documents the limited scope of national legislative measures (see for example HREOC 2002; Baird 2003, 2006) but has not yet explored in detail the access to and use of existing provisions. (1) This is a matter of some concern because assumptions about accessibility and usage based solely on the presence of policies may be misleading.

A recent British study by Budd and Mumford (2006) highlights this point. In an examination of five 'family-friendly' policies in British workplaces drawing on data from the 1998 British Workplace Employee Relations Survey (WERS), these authors distinguish between three levels of the policy process: actual availability, perceived accessibility, and employee usage. (2) Their analysis investigates links between the first two of these levels, highlighting a disparity between the presence oforganisational policies and employees' perceptions of their accessibility. Budd and Mumford (2006) thus argue that organisational statistics on the availability of family-friendly policies are likely to significantly overstate the extent to which such policies are accessible to employees in practice. Moreover, the authors acknowledge that the potentially more significant discrepancy between formal provision and actual usage, which could not be examined with the WERS data, should be the subject of future research. In this paper we take up this issue through the qualitative analysis of the perceptions of access to, and actual usage of, maternity leave and flexible return to work options in a large Australian organisation.

With respect to maternity leave (particularly paid maternity leave) in Australia, there is some uncertainty at each of the three levels referred to in the Budd and Mumford (2006) study, and thus considerable difficulty in analysing the links between them at the national scale. At the level of formal provision or actual availability, a legislated entitlement to 52 weeks unpaid maternity leave extends to the majority of female employees. Paid maternity leave entitlements, however, are not universally available in Australia and may be specified in a range of different documents, from Acts covering public servants in the various federal and state jurisdictions to specific union collective agreements or company policies (Baird 2006). Consequently, there is much less certainty surrounding the availability of paid maternity leave. Statistics on organisational level provision are collected regularly by the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency (EOWA), but they overstate the extent of organisational provision because they are drawn primarily from large organisations which are considerably more likely to have paid maternity leave provisions in place. (3) While the EOWA data do provide evidence of an increasing incidence of paid maternity leave provisions within large organisations--from 23 per cent in 2001 to 46 per cent in 2005 (EOWA 2006, Appendix 2)--they are not suitable for estimating the overall extent of organisational provision in the Australian labour market, nor do they provide details of the numbers of female employees who have the entitlement.

At the level of 'perceived accessibility', information is available through employee surveys such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Employee Earnings, Benefits and Trade Union Membership survey, which indicates that in 2006, 38.8 per cent of Australian employees believed they had access to paid maternity or paternity leave in their main job (ABS 2007, p. 30). (4) However, in the absence of linked workplace and employee surveys (last conducted in the 1995 Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey) there is no capacity in Australia to assess the association between organisational level policies and perceptions of access. Variation in accessibility within organisations--highlighted by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) as one of the main limitations of existing organisational level data (HREOC 2002, p. 238)--thus remains unexplored, and the concerns raised in the Budd and Mumford (2006) study cannot be effectively examined.

At the actual 'usage' level, new survey data enable presentation of a statistical overview of the utilisation of maternity leave in Australia and return to work patterns, although they do not provide the capacity to directly link usage with specific organisational level policies or provisions in industrial agreements. (5) Case studies thus remain the most effective means of examining links between policy and usage. Although limited to specific settings, case studies provide a useful means of uncovering the complexities underpinning the broader statistical picture, and examining influences on the way policies are perceived and utilised within specific organisational contexts.

For this paper we draw on a single case study that has been conducted as part of a larger project examining the access, utilisation and efficacy of parental leave (used as a gender-neutral term for both maternity and paternity leave) in Australia by means of a national survey (the Parental Leave in Australia Survey), organisational case studies, and household interviews. Our analysis is designed on the following lines. Using the Parental Leave in Australia Survey, we begin with a statistical overview of policy usage in Australia which illustrates the complex combinations of leave arrangements used by women for maternity purposes. We are particularly interested in combinations involving the use of some paid maternity leave, as this is one of the family-friendly policies available to female employees of our case study organisation. Our case analysis then examines variation in, and influences on, the perceptions of access to, and use of, maternity leave and related return to work policies.

This case study analysis draws on the findings of Budd and Mumford (2006, p. 27), who argue that 'perceived accessibility', which then links with usage, will be influenced by three factors. These are whether or not the policies are available to all employees of the organisation; employee awareness of the policies; and barriers to being able to use the policies, which include personal financial constraints, job constraints and fear of reprisal or discrimination. Thompson, Beauvais and Lyness (1999), considering work-family benefits more generally, found that a supportive organisational culture was essential for the use of available policy and that it was positively correlated with employees' organisational commitment and negatively correlated to their work-family conflict and intention to resign. Eaton (2003) also found that employees who made use of family-friendly flexibilities were more committed to that organisation and also more productive.

Another significant issue that arises in policy debates and research is the optimum period of leave from work and arrangements for return to work after maternity leave. In terms of optimum periods, while there are differences in policy recommendations, Galtry and Gallister (2005) argue that six months is optimal for a range of reasons. From the organisational perspective, return to work issues are important; they are typically couched in terms of retention rates and increasingly form part of the business case rationale for paid parental leave policies. From the female employee's perspective, Baird and Charlesworth (2007) have argued that return to work policies are an important accompaniment to maternity leave policies--that the two are twinned and together impact on the employee's usage of available policies and ability to combine work and family. Such an inclination for women to return to work for an employer who has provided paid maternity leave has been demonstrated by the cross-national work ofWaldfogel, Higuchi and Abe (1999). Houston and Marks (2003) argue that retention is more likely to be the case if employees arranged their return to work, in consultation with their managers, prior to their leave, and if the managers remained in the same position upon their return to work. Additional influences on women's use of family-friendly policies will undoubtedly include individual employees' attitudes as well as their domestic situations (see for example Singley and Hynes 2005), but for the current analysis we focus specifically on the organisational and workplace context.

In the next section of the paper, we present contextual data from the Parental Leave in Australia Survey. This is followed by the case study findings and concludes by returning to the issue of the links between availability, perception and usage of the policies, as they occur in the organisational context.

Accessing Maternity Leave in Australia: A National Overview

For our statistical backdrop we draw on the Parental Leave in Australia Survey conducted in 2005 as a nested study within the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC). The survey delivered over 3,500 responses from families with children born between March 2003 and February 2004. (6) It provides detailed information on take-up rates of different forms of leave taken at the time of the birth of a child, including the extent to which women combine different forms of paid and unpaid maternity and 'other' (that is, non-maternity) forms of leave.

Within the Australian policy context (where all who meet eligibility criteria are entitled to 52 weeks unpaid maternity leave, but access to paid maternity leave is uneven and typically for a short period of six to 12 weeks) we anticipate that very few will be able to rely fully on paid maternity leave, and that the use of other forms of paid leave in combination with maternity leave will be widespread. These expectations are confirmed by the survey data presented in Table 1, which focuses on mothers who were employees (7) in the 12 months prior to the birth of their child and who took some leave at the time of the birth. The three panels in the table distinguish between paid forms of leave, unpaid forms of leave and combinations of both. Within each of these three categories, a further division between maternity and 'other' (non-maternity) forms of leave is considered.

Table 1 shows that 14 per cent of these leave-takers relied solely on paid leave. Half this 'paid leave only' group (7 per cent of the total) combined paid maternity and paid other leave, while just 4 per cent of the total used paid maternity leave only. A higher proportion (around one-third) used unpaid leave only, with approximately one-quarter relying just on unpaid maternity leave. More than half (54 per cent) used a combination of both paid and unpaid leave, with many drawing on 'other' forms of paid leave to supplement their maternity leave. Unsurprisingly, average leave durations were longest amongst those combining both paid and unpaid forms of leave, and shortest among those solely reliant on 'other' paid leave. (8)

In total, just over 45 per cent of the leave-takers represented in Table 1 were using some paid maternity leave either alone or in combination with additional forms of leave. (9) While it is not surprising that those women who can access some paid maternity leave tend to supplement it with other forms of leave, the variety of combinations evident in the survey data raise questions about what influences these choices, and in particular the impact of the workplace context on women's need and capacity to negotiate complex combinations of their paid maternity leave entitlements with other leave and associated policies. In the following section we examine these and the associated return to work issues at the case study level.

Case Study Method

As noted earlier, the case study provides valuable evidence to investigate the links between formal availability, perceived accessibility and actual usage of family-friendly policies as suggested by Budd and Mumford (2006). Our research methods were qualitative and interactive and allowed for considerable detail and knowledge to be gathered about the experiences of employees in the case study organisation. (10) A researcher was based within the organisation for 24 months and was able to collect policy documents and organisational statistics, conduct individual and group interviews (often assisted by another team member), and engage in formal email interviews and face-to-face discussion with employees. Human resource records, both general and specifically related to the use of maternity leave for the past 10 years, were also available for quantitative analysis. These provide an unusually large amount of organisational information, revealing patterns of use over a decade. Structured email correspondence from 22 female staff about their own maternity leave and return to work experiences supplemented notes from two group interviews of employees with personal experience of maternity leave. Five of these employees had more than one pregnancy while employed by the organisation. The group interviews (or roundtables) included up to 25 employees who had used maternity leave and flexible work policies. Together with informal conversations, they provided both broader organisational context and individual stories about the intersection of work and childbearing in the organisation today and in the near past.

We now present an overview of our case study organisation, followed by findings. For each of the two subsections of findings, taking maternity leave and returning to work, we make use of the analytic framework provided by Budd and Mumford (2006)--that is, the existence of policy, perceptions of accessibility and usage--to convey our findings. We then offer our conclusions.

Case Study Organisation

The organisation is a state-owned corporation providing essential utility services to a large metropolitan area. At the time of the research it employed approximately 3500 people. Women constitute less than one-quarter of these employees, and organisational records show that they are, on average, younger and have fewer years of service at the organisation than men. As Table 2 indicates, employees in this organisation are engaged in a diverse range of professional, administrative and technical occupations. The most common occupational category for men and the second most common for women is 'professional' (accounting for 29 per cent and 39 per cent respectively of male and female employees). There are similar proportions of men and women in managerial roles (around 5 per cent), but women are much more likely to be in clerical jobs (43 per cent) and men in intermediate production and labouring positions (33 per cent). On average, across the organisation, men are on higher pay levels than women.

The head office, which employs over 1,000 staff (including 45 per cent of its female employees), is located in the central business district with 67 workplaces radiating out over a large area and ranging in size from one to 269 employees. Twenty-two of these (small) workplaces employed only men. In another 25 workplaces, fewer than one in five employees were women (in 15 there was only one female employee). Predictably, head office is populated by employees in management and administrative jobs, while employees at more suburban locations are more likely to be in professional and technical jobs. Full-time staff work a 35-hour week, with shift-working staff (entitled to rostered days off) working 38 hours per week and agency hire staff working up to 40 hours per week. Employees in some operational areas are regularly required to be on standby 24 hours a day, seven days per week. An estimated 85 per cent of employees are union members. The coverage of the two main unions is clearly delineated: one covers blue collar and clerical staff, and the other covers scientific and engineering staff. These unions are involved in negotiating the enterprise award, which includes the actual parental leave and return to work provisions. Consistent with research by Glass and Fujimoto (1995), this large, unionised organisation offers a range of family-responsive policies.

The organisation has received commendations for its formal work--family policies, which are consistent with those offered by many public sector organisations in Australia (see for example Whitehouse and Zetlin 1999). In addition to the leave arrangements, including the possibility of part-time leave/part-time return to work, flexible working hours, such as allowing employees to vary their hours while still averaging standard hours over a 12-week period, are also available for balancing work and non-work life and providing care opportunities. Flexible work hours policies are explained and promoted in organisational literature along with flexible leave arrangements (including parental leave, personal/carer's leave, leave without pay and career break) and flexible work arrangements (including home-based work and part-time work) as family-friendly policies.

Taking Maternity Leave

Employees at the case study organisation are entitled to the Australian national legislated standard of 52 weeks unpaid parental leave, including nine weeks of paid maternity leave provided by the organisation. (11) The organisation's compendium of work-family policies expresses the rationale for this policy as both the 'business case' and what Charlesworth and Probert (2005, p. 122) encapsulate as 'improving the stature and reputation of the organisation'. The parental leave policy makes maternity leave available to all women who are permanent, fixed-term or regular casual employees (a regular casual employee is a casual employee who works on a regular and systematic basis and who has a reasonable expectation of ongoing employment on that basis). A nine-week paid provision is available to women who have completed 40 weeks continual service, which can be taken at full pay or half pay for twice the time. An unpaid period of up to a year full-time is available, and this unpaid provision may be taken part-time up until the child's second birthday, on negotiation by an employee with her manager. (12) This provision, which is more generous than the basic statutory entitlement, effectively allows an employee at this case study organisation to return to work part-time for up to two years after the birth of the child.

Organisational maternity leave policy, perceptions of accessibility and use of leave are closely intertwined. For many women in this highly regulated and unionised public sector environment, the existence of the maternity leave policy results in its unproblematic use by women who need it. Employee records from the case study organisation indicate that 276 female employees accessed paid and/or unpaid maternity leave between 1995, when the paid leave policy was introduced, and July 2005, when the data were collected. Of these 276 women, 166 accessed only one period of leave, 92 accessed two periods of leave, 14 accessed three periods of leave and four accessed four periods of leave: making a total of 408 periods of paid and/or unpaid maternity leave. (It is each separate period of leave, rather than the female employee, which constitutes the unit of analysis for data in Table 3.)

Table 3 shows that most occurrences of maternity leave have included a period of paid maternity leave. (The few incidents of 'unpaid leave only' may have been taken by employees not eligible for paid leave.) The periods of paid leave taken were largely the maximum offered in the actual organisational policy, that is, either exactly nine weeks (45 per cent) or 18 weeks (43 per cent), depending on whether it was taken at full pay or half pay over twice the period. Additional organisational data showed that having taken paid maternity leave, just over 20 per cent of females then took 1-8 weeks of unpaid maternity leave, another approximately 20 per cent took 8-16 weeks, a further 20 per cent took 16-26 weeks and over 25 per cent took 26-39 weeks.

The data in Table 3 also show that it is most common to combine paid and unpaid leave for first and second births. In contrast to the national data, which includes women who do not have access to paid maternity leave, a large proportion of the case study employees took paid leave only, and a very small number took only unpaid leave for the first and second births. The likelihood of combining paid and unpaid leave tends to decline for third and more episodes of leave, while the likelihood of taking only unpaid leave increases with additional leave instances. Among those who had taken three or four periods of leave, a large majority took unpaid leave only. Although the number of females in these latter two categories is too small to make meaningful assessments, it is possible that it is not perceived as acceptable to take numerous paid maternity leave periods.

While we have data about the timing of the commencement of unpaid maternity leave after the completion of paid maternity leave (presented in Table 4) it is not possible to directly link up the taking of other types of paid leave with maternity leave for the 10-year statistical data from the organisation. Table 4, however, indicates that for just over half of the leave-takers, periods of time often elapse between the end of paid maternity leave and the commencement of unpaid maternity leave. It is very likely, given the evidence from individuals in single and group interviews, that maternity leave--takers are invoking long service leave and/or annual recreation leave during these periods. Many female employees seek a longer period of paid leave after the birth of their child and this can only be achieved by combining paid maternity leave with paid personal leave. In discussion, women referred to all the paid leave taken at the birth of their child as their 'paid maternity leave', suggesting both that they have a social definition of paid maternity leave and that they accept and internalise the use of their other accrued leave (whether it be long service or annual leave) to supplement the formal entitlement to paid maternity leave.

The ten years of organisational statistics were augmented by data collected from current employees by email. Of the 22 email replies, all but one had taken paid maternity leave, with over half choosing to take the paid leave for twice the period (18 weeks) at half pay. Two of these staff took only paid maternity leave, and one was only able to take unpaid maternity leave as she was agency hire staff at that time. All other staff combined their paid maternity leave with up to four other types of leave. Of the 28 pregnancy experiences reported, 13 were mixed with annual leave, (13) 10 with long service leave (also able to be taken at half or full pay), and 10 with unpaid maternity leave. These arrangements accord with national data referred to earlier in the paper.

Such combinations of leave rely on considerable organisational knowledge and sometimes negotiation ability on the part of employees. As well as speaking with their peers, female employees often clarified their entitlements (to leave and to return to work, perhaps part-time) via the payroll section of the organisation. As one participant in the first group interview discussion said, 'you have to know who to talk to'. In their view, line managers and the human resources department were less reliable sources of such information. This issue came through strongly in the group interview discussions where participants talked about how women (as pregnant employees) gather, know and share information. The female employees used the research process itself as an opportunity to crosscheck their own understandings of entitlements and related processes.

Unfortunately, the large and fragmented nature of the organisation means that not all pregnant women seek to access maternity leave policy under the same seemingly supportive circumstances where ways to maximise the paid component are known and shared. When the use of maternity leave is not a usual occurrence within the work unit, would-be leave-takers may have to seek out information independent of peers and managers, and then bring this information to the notice of managers and negotiate its application to their situation. For example, one participant at the first group discussion described how she 'had to do her homework', which included photocopying documents, highlighting the relevant parts and attaching those to her leave application because her supervisor did not have the requisite knowledge. The attitude of managers, particularly their knowledge of the award, the agreement and related policies, personal experience of work and family, attitude towards women and, ultimately, the organisational division and its particular cultural climate, were all reportedly factors affecting perceptions of maternity leave policy accessibility. At the first group interview it was noted that 'pockets [exist] where people/supervisors are very supportive', but an email interviewee stated that 'some managers and some divisions have very few women ever wanting maternity leave so dealing with issues ... [is] difficult' and another that 'general managers do not wish to be inconvenienced by leave arrangements'. While there was no direct evidence of eligible employees being denied access to maternity leave policy, some women had to work harder to access their entitlements and risk getting offside with their manager and co-workers.

Returning to Work

In line with federal legislation an individual who takes maternity leave for up to one year is entitled to return to her former (or equivalent) position. The organisation studied here offers additional flexible options around the combining of leave with part-time work, which allows this period to be extended to two years. In addition, on-site subsidised child care services at two locations reduced the disincentive that child care costs often present for mothers considering returning to work. The location and number of places were, however, problematic for some parents, as was the termination of the organisation's vacation care program for school-aged children. Such family-friendly policies, designed to assist mothers in their return to work, were consistent with the organisation's professed commitment to equal employment opportunity, and specifically the development and retention of women. Other supportive programs include the monitoring of return to work after maternity leave, exit interviews, and monitoring the career progression of women.

Again, perceptions of access to return to work under the policy seem relatively closely aligned with use. Many women do return to work following maternity leave. Organisational records reveal that of the female employees who accessed maternity leave in the period 1995-2005, 62 per cent remain currently employed by the organisation, with the rest having terminated their employment at some point after returning from maternity leave. Those who returned said they did so for a range of reasons: they 'loved their work', 'wanted to use or maintain their skills', enjoyed the 'social interaction' or wanted the money. They also seemed to appreciate that the family-friendly policies they were able to access and use at the case study organisation were not necessarily available with other employers: 'You're not in a big hurry to let go of what you've got 'cause you may never get it back' (group interview member). They tended to seek information about their return to work entitlements at the same time as they got information about maternity leave.

Table 5, below, demonstrates that among employees who returned after maternity leave but then left the organisation, around a third exited immediately following their maternity leave, and a little over 50 per cent had exited by six months. It would appear from these figures that six months is the critical point for women returning and combining maternal responsibilities but it is difficult to speculate why when our main sources of information were current employees. (Data for exits up to nine years after accessing maternity leave are also provided in the table, but the greater the period between return and exiting the organisation, the more tenuous the connection between giving birth or adoption and leaving work.)

With organisational data we were able to examine the pay levels of those returning and those exiting after maternity leave. Those in the lower pay categories (1-3) at the time of their leave, which is just over 200 of the total number of leave-takers, showed retention rates of between 54 and 60 per cent. Those in the higher pay categories (4, 5) enjoyed retention rates of 78 and 80 per cent respectively. Such a finding is consistent with theories of employee investment in career and workplace skills and is also likely to be influenced by household decisions made in response to the Australian welfare (including child care) regime.

Email interview data provided more detail about return to work, in particular initial experiences. They showed that, in line with the policy, maternity leave-takers return to the same position, either on the same basis or on a newly arranged part-time basis, without any problems. Corresponding with the findings of Houston and Marks (2003), positive experiences are more likely when employees planned their return-to-work with their manager prior to their leave, and that the manager remained in the same position when they returned from leave. One respondent reported:

   I returned to the same position. My return from maternity leave was
   discussed before I went on leave, and roles and responsibilities
   altered accordingly. When I returned to work earlier than planned,
   work loads and responsibilities were discussed without any
   problems.

When those preconditions were not met, that is, the return to work aspect of the policy had not been converted into a concrete plan with a stable manager, a poor return-to-work experiences may result, such as:

   I did not return to my previous position as it no longer existed
   ... Return to work was discussed with my manager ... [then] the
   manager took [a] redundancy ... My transition after the birth ...
   was not handled well at all as no one knew what to do with me. I
   had no desk ... the staff had to clear a desk as I walked in the
   door. I was given no role, no tasks and was told different messages
   each time I spoke to management.

The employee herself may find she is unable to fully abide by the plan and this may not be managed well:

   My manager and I had discussed my return to work and I thought that
   I had a good flexible work agreement ... The impact of giving up
   breastfeeding on me physically and emotionally was totally
   unexpected and coincided with the shock of returning to work. I was
   not coping well ... My manager did not react well to my 'struggles'
   with work and did not seem to take into account my health ... I had
   the strong impression she had decided that I was incompetent and
   not to be trusted.

While some women's return to work stories indicate that making use of this part of the policy may not be straightforward, it would seem that many women persist. A body of informal knowledge had developed around how female returners might ensure a smooth return to work. Three email respondents who returned to full-time hours following a period of maternity leave were making use of a compressed work week: working their 35 hours over four days. Such arrangements were perceived to be more 'acceptable' to managers and co-workers than part-time hours (but even then, more acceptable in some worksites of the organisation than others). Similarly another email interview participant explained that women working part-time hours upon return from maternity leave may be pressured to give it up:

   Some senior (and not so senior) people who work full-time and are
   very career-orientated find it hard to understand why I would not
   want to work full-time. They think that wanting to be there for
   your children is not as important as work. I think the higher you
   go the more pressure to be full-time is applied. Also, as your
   children become school-aged, again the question is asked about
   full-time work.

At the case study organisation, in policy and in practice, maternity leave-taking and return to work are closely aligned with part-time work. As indicated in Table 6, since the policy was introduced in 1998 over 40 per cent of maternity leave-takers have used the part-time hours policy on return to work.

The more detailed individual data supplied by 16 maternity leave-takers via email displayed a high level of use of part-time hours on return from maternity leave. Their experiences were diverse, but most initially returned to work part-time (only one had been working part-time prior to leave), with just four returning full-time. Those returning full-time reported doing some of their work from a remote office or home office, or working shifts. Another three women used part-time work to stagger their return to full-time hours and a further three increased the number of their part-time hours over time.

At the second roundtable a predominantly technical workplace was identified as resistant to workplace flexibility. Neither job sharing nor part-time work were seen to be compatible with the shift work required there, but one employee told of another organisation she had worked for doing similar work where lots of jobs were shared. Another participant in the group interview who worked in another predominantly technical workplace also talked about the blanket denial of part-time work which she and three colleagues had been subjected to upon return from maternity leave. She could readily see how part-time positions could be constructed at the workplace by putting together tasks that did not rely on knowledge of the day-to-day running of the workplace, for example tasks that were routinely done once a week; however, supervisors maintained that part-time work 'does not suit the business needs'. A management level staff member from a related workplace declared that 'people who think you can't be flexible, it's really just a mindset'.

Among staff who were able to make use of part-time work, many then faced hurdles in developing their post--maternity leave career. In reply to such expectations, one email respondent said she returned to work full-time, rather than her preferred part-time hours, because she did not want to be seen to lack commitment or to miss out on training and development. Another female employee who wanted part-time work following the birth of her child said she is now looked upon differently by co-workers--'you're considered lucky'--but then she was also told that 'she had reached a glass ceiling'; another part-time female, a manager herself, was told by a more senior manager when requesting training directly linked to her current job, 'I can't believe you already work part-time and now you want to go to a training course!' Aware of such stories, a few women who participated in the first roundtable and were planning to take maternity leave in the near future said they would also return full-time as they perceived access to part-time work carried career penalties. In addition to such attitudinal problems part-timers faced logistic difficulties accessing training: they may have to rearrange their working days and child care to attend training if it is scheduled on their non-working days.

Other respondents, particularly those participating in email interviews, felt that taking maternity leave and then returning part-time did not hinder their access to training and development. Statistical evidence of shifts in the pay level of maternity leave--takers from their first incidence of maternity leave tells another story. Table 7 shows that only one female employee, who took maternity leave in 2002, seems to have been promoted since she returned from leave. As we do not have comparative data on the career progression of female employees who are childless or for male employees, we cannot conclude that female maternity leave--takers in the case study organisation are being sidelined. However, it also appears from these data that until 2000 many leave-takers actually dropped pay level on return, which is very concerning in terms of the impact on female pay and career prospects. This trend has slowed noticeably in later years, perhaps as the organisation's policies and management have become more attuned to the reality of post-maternity leave work.

Conclusion

The paper has investigated Budd and Mumford's (2006) observation of dislocation between formal maternity leave provisions and perceived accessibility in a single case study organisation, with an added focus on the actual use of policies. Set against the statistical backdrop of maternity leave access and use in Australia, the study brings to life the lived experiences of working women who are also having children.

Close examination of organisational quantitative and qualitative data indicates that the establishment of progressive maternity leave and return to work policies does not necessarily translate into perceptions of accessibility and use of policy by all eligible staff. While awareness of the policy across the organisation would seem to be high, there is skill in its use: the data suggest that employees wanting to make optimal use of the policy have to be very well informed and actively pursue their interests. As a management-level employee present at the second roundtable group suggests, female employees with family responsibilities have to make 'life choices', be very forceful in setting boundaries, and also fight the perception that part-timers are not career-minded. More broadly the evidence suggests they must be adept at information gathering, communication and application, and be prepared to look upon personal leave as available for maternity purposes. They need the confidence to negotiate their leave arrangements and plan for their return to work within the generous provisions. In addition to variations in competencies across eligible staff, the resistance or support they may encounter from supervisors and co-workers differs across the organisation.

In addition to the factors identified by Budd and Mumford (2006), a distinction is apparent between the maternity leave-related experiences of white-collar workers and blue-collar workers, who were usually segregated into different work locations. The latter women, who are working in traditionally male-dominated areas, reported problems on a variety of fronts: their managers resisted their leave, maternity uniforms were not available, they had to cope with the potential of chemical hazards, shift work and on-call requirements (which are also an issue for male parents). These were the same women later denied access to part-time work. It would seem that their ability to fight for their entitlements under the policy was no match for the strength of their superiors' opposition.

In other workplaces of the case organisation, particularly head office and close surrounds, the 'fight' had already been won, perhaps by the women who are now their managers, and the full use of maternity leave and return to work (whether part-time or full-time) policy was standard practice. A respondent encapsulated this contrast:

   I know of some groups in head office that are very flexible towards
   maternity leave and have a number of staff members within the group
   working part-time with no problems at all. I think head office may
   get a little more freedom than staff at [a regional facility] who
   [are] still stuck in the dark ages to a certain extent. A few more
   female managers at [that regional facility] certainly wouldn't go
   astray.

Thus, although the policies are available to all employees, the apparent ease of making suitable arrangements for women working in the 'family-friendly' flexible work culture of head office contrasts with the difficulties of women working in very masculine environments, some physical and cultural distance from head office. Distance from the head office compounds other perception and usage barriers that exist, such as unchangeable job size and lack of managerial support.

Within this organisation the twin issues of maternity leave-taking and return to work are closely related to each other and to part-time work. Although the part-time leave/part-time work option has become a popular policy, it does appear that there are consequences for women. On return to work, few women move up the pay scale and career stalling is very evident. Yet interestingly, this outcome, as well as the need to access one's own personal annual and long service leave to supplement paid maternity leave, were not overtly criticised by the female employees in either individual or group interviews. This apparent internalisation of norms and acceptance of the tension surrounding work and family point to the existence of deeper and less visible barriers to changing women's perceptions and use of family-friendly policies.

We concur with Budd and Mumford (2006) that the links between perceived accessibility and actual usage of organisational family-friendly policies need to be more clearly understood. We also suggest, however, that these links are even more complex than discussed in the literature, and that, at least in this organisation, a degree of internalisation of work-life tension is usual for female employees who are mothers. This, we argue, is exacerbated by two policy issues that tend to set the normative backdrop for women at work: one, public policies in Australia that do not fully acknowledge women's paid and unpaid labour and two, organisational polices that do not recognise the disjuncture between policy and practice and do not actively work to overcome bias against usage.

Acknowledgements

The Parental Leave in Australia Survey has been funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC) and industry partners (HREOC, the NSW Office of Industrial Relations, the NSW Office for Women, the Queensland Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, and the Women's Electoral Lobby) through ARC Linkage Project LP0453613. It has been undertaken as a nested study within Growing Up in Australia, the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC). LSAC was initiated and is funded by the Australian Government through the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA) and is being conducted in conjunction with the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) and a consortium of research agencies and universities. The case study research has been supported by ARC Linkage Project LP0455212. We would also like to acknowledge Dr Dominique Beck for her research within the case organisation and Ms Amanda Hosking for her statistical analysis. The authors are solely responsible for the analysis presented in the paper. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2006 Conference of the Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand in Adelaide.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2005), Pregnancy and Employment Transitions, Australia, November, cat. 4913.0.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2007), Employee Earnings, Benefits and Trade Union Membership, Australia, August, cat. 6310.0.

Baird, M. (2003), 'Paid Maternity Leave: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly', Australian Bulletin of Labour, vol. 29, pp. 97-109.

Baird, M. (2006), 'The Gender Agenda: Women, Work and Maternity Leave in Australia', in Hearn M. and Michelson G. (eds), Rethinking Work: Time, Space and Discourse, WOS, Cambridge, pp. 39-59.

Baird, M. and Charlesworth, S. (2007), 'After the Baby: A Qualitative Study of Working Time Arrangements Post Maternity Leave', Labour and Industry (forthcoming).

Budd, J. and Mumford K. (2006), 'Family-Friendly Work Practices in Britain: Availability and Perceived Accessibility', Human Resource Management, vol. 45, pp. 23-42.

Charlesworth, S. and Probert, B. (2005), 'Why Some Organisations Take on Family-Friendly Policies: the Case of Paid Maternity Leave', in Baird, M., Cooper, R. and Westcott, M. (eds), Refereed Proceedings of the 19th Conference of Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand, Sydney, pp. 119-128.

Eaton, S. (2003), 'If You Can Use Them: Flexibility Policies, Organizational Commitment, Perceived Performance', Industrial Relations, vol. 42, pp. 145-167.

Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency (EOWA) (2003), Work--Life Flexibility Survey 2003, Australian Government, Canberra.

Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency (2006), Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Survey 2005--Paid Paternity Leave, Australian Government, Canberra.

Galtry, J. and Callister, P. (2005), 'Assessing the Optimal Length of Parental Leave for Child and Parental Well-being: How Can Research Inform Policy?' Journal of Family Issues, vol. 26, pp. 219-246.

Glass, J. and Fujimoto, T. (1995), 'Employer Characteristics and the Provision of Family Responsive Policies', Work and Occupations, vol. 22, pp. 380-411.

Houston, D. and Marks, G. (2003), 'The Role of Planning and Workplace Support in Returning to Work after Maternity Leave', British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 41, pp. 197-214.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) (2002), A Time to Value. Proposal for a National Paid Maternity Leave Scheme, Sex Discrimination Unit, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Sydney.

Lewis, S. and Cooper, C. (2005), Work-Life Integration: Case Studies of Organisational Change, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.

Moss, P. (2006), 'Introduction to Country Notes', in Moss, P. and O'Brien, M. (eds), International Review of Leave Policies and Related Research 2006, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) Employment Relations Research Series No. 57, London.

Moss, P. and O'Brien, M. (eds), (2006), International Review of Leave Policies and Related Research 2006, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) Employment Relations Research Series No. 57, London.

Rapoport, R., Bailyn, L., Fletcher, J. and Pruitt, B. (2002), Beyond Family Balance: Advancing Gender Equity and Workplace Performance, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Rostgaard, T. (2005), 'Diversity and Parental Leave', in Deven, F. and Moss, P. (eds), Leave Policies and Research: Reviews and Country Notes, Centrum voor Bevolkingsen Gezinsstudie, Werkdocument 2005/3, Brussels.

Singley, S. and Hynes, K. (2005), 'Transitions to Parenthood: Work--Family Policies, Gender and the Couple Context', Gender and Society, vol. 19, pp. 376-397.

Thompson, C., Beauvais, L. and Lyness, K. (1999), 'When Work--Family Benefits are Not Enough: The Influence of Work--Family Culture on Benefit Utilisation, Organisational Attachment and Work--Family Conflict', Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 54, pp. 392-415.

Waldfogel, J., Higuchi, Y. and Abe, M. (1999), 'Family Leave Policies and Women's Retention aider Childbirth: Evidence from the United States, Britain, and Japan', Journal of Population Economics, vol. 12, pp. 523-545.

Whitehouse, G., Baird, M. and Diamond, C. (2005), The Parental Leave in Australia Survey, funded by Australian Research Council Linkage Project LP0453613, in conjunction with Wave 1.5 of the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children.

Whitehouse, G., Baird, M., Diamond, C. and Hosking, A. (2006), The Parental Leave in Australia Survey: November 2006 Report, available at http://www.uq.edu.au/polsis/parental-leave/level1-report.pdf.

Whitehouse, G., Baird, M., Diamond, C. and Soloff, C. (2007), 'Parental Leave in Australia: Beyond the Statistical Gap', Research Note in Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 49, pp. 103-112.

Whitehouse, G. and Zetlin, D. (1999), '"Family-Friendly" Policies: Distribution and Implementation in Australian Workplaces', The Economic and Labour Relations Review, vol. 10, pp. 221-239.

Notes

(1.) Australia is not alone in this situation. While detailed information on provisions for maternity leave can be obtained for most countries (see Moss and O'Brien 2006), documentation of patterns of usage at the national and organisational levels has been far more limited (Rostgaard 2005; Moss 2006), reflecting in part the difficulty of collecting statistically reliable data on this issue.

(2.) The five family-friendly measures examined by Budd and Mumford (2006, p.29) are parental leave; working at or from home in normal working hours; job sharing; paid leave at short notice; and child care.

(3.) EOWA data from 2003 show that 44 per cent of organisations with 1000 or more employees had paid maternity leave provisions compared with around 34 per cent of those with fewer than 250 employees (EOWA 2003). The group of organisations with fewer than 250 employees predominantly comprises organisations with 100-249 employees, as organisations with fewer than 100 employees are not required to report to EOWA (although some sub-sections or branches may report separately).

(4.) Perceptions of access were higher among women than men, and considerably higher among those in public sector jobs. For example 43.7 per cent of all female employees and 73.5 per cent of female public sector employees reported access to paid maternity leave (ABS 2007, p. 29). For discussion on some of the limitations of this kind of survey data, see Whitehouse, Baird, Diamond and Soloff (2007).

(5.) The Parental Leave in Australia Survey (Whitehouse, Baird and Diamond 2005), distributed to the infant cohort of the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children in May 2005, provides data on usage of maternity, paternity and other forms of leave at the time of the birth of a child. In addition, a new ABS supplementary labour force survey conducted in November 2005--the Pregnancy and Employment Transitions survey (cat. 4913.0)--provides estimates of the use of different forms of leave.

(6.) Details on the survey, including information on sample selection, response rates and an overview of preliminary statistics can be found in Whitehouse et al. (2006) The Parental Leave in Australia Survey: November 2006 Report, <http://www.uq.edu.au/polsis/parental-leave/level1-report.pdf>.

(7.) We exclude the self-employed from these figures in order to focus on those with potential to access employer provided or legislated paid or unpaid maternity leave.

(8.) The average duration figure in the table refers to total duration regardless of pay rate. Thus, the average duration of paid maternity leave may seem longer than expected. In fact, almost 20 per cent of women relying fully on paid maternity leave took their leave at less than full pay (typically half-pay at double the duration).

(9.) This is made up of the 4 per cent who took paid maternity leave only, the 7 per cent who took paid maternity and other paid leave and (within note d) the 23 per cent who took paid maternity, plus other paid and some unpaid leave, and the 12 per cent who took paid and unpaid maternity leave and no other leave.

(10.) The research process was partly based on the Collaborative Interactive Action Research (CIAR) method (see Rapoport et al. 2002; Lewis and Cooper 2005). However, we were not seeking leverage for organisational change so much as an in-depth understanding of organisational processes through collaborative data collection that recognises the expertise of managers and employees and proceeds through the exchange of ideas and information.

(11.) At the time of writing these were the provisions. The paid maternity leave provision was increased to 14 weeks after the case study was completed.

(12.) This is actually a system of part-time return to work following maternity leave which may be negotiated by an employee with her manager and then worked up until the child's second birthday.

(13.) Since 2002 the organisation has required staff to take such leave each year or forfeit it which now prevents staff from accumulating annual leave with a view to combining it with a period of maternity leave.

Chris Diamond *

Marian Baird **

Gillian Whitehouse *

* School of Political Science and International Studies, University of Queensland 

** Work and Organisational Studies, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Sydney 

Table 1: Combinations of leave types, mothers of children
born March 2003--February 2004 who were employees in the
12 months prior to the birth and took leave, Australiaa

                                          % taking
                                            leave           Average
Leave combinations                       combination       duration
                                             (b)            (weeks)

Paid leave only                              14               20

Paid maternity leave only                     4               18
  Paid other leave only (c)                   3                8
  Paid maternity and paid other leave         7               26

Unpaid leave only                            32               38
  Unpaid maternity leave only                24               38
  Unpaid other, with/without unpaid           8               39
maternity leave

Paid and unpaid leave combinations (d)       54               46

Total                                        100              40

N (e)                                                1647

Notes:

(a.) Figures have been weighted to account for non-response
bias identified in LSAC Wave 1.

(b.) Percentages have been rounded.

(c.) 'Other' refers to leave not designated as 'maternity'
leave. Other forms of paid leave include annual leave, long
service leave and sick leave.

(d.) Combinations in this panel have been collapsed for
simplicity of presentation. The most frequent combinations
of paid and unpaid leave are: paid maternity and paid other
with some unpaid leave (23% of all employees who took
leave); paid other with unpaid maternity leave (16% of all
employees who took leave); paid and unpaid maternity leave,
no other leave (12% of all employees who took leave).

(e.) Base population: mothers of children born March
2003--February 2004 who were employees in the 12 months
prior to the birth of their child and who took leave at
the time of the birth, unweighted.

Source of data: The Parental Leave in Australia Survey
(Whitehouse, Baird and Diamond 2005), conducted in
conjunction with LSAC Wave 1.5.

Table 2: Occupational composition of workforce by sex,
2005 (row percentages)

                             Occupation

            Manager    Profession-    Associate    Trades
                                      profession   person

Male           6            29            16         7
Female         5            39            10         0
All            6            31            15         5

                            Occupation

            Clerical   Intermediate   Labourer      N
            (b)        production

Male            9           12            21       2614
Female         43            3             0        792
All             9           18            16       3406

Notes:

(a.) Professionals include building and engineering
professionals; computing professionals; natural and
physical science professionals; business and information
professionals; and accountants, auditors and corporate
treasurers.

(b.) Clerical includes advanced, intermediate and
elementary clerical workers.

Table 3: Instances of maternity leave, by type of leave
and sequence, 1995-2005 (row percentages)

                    Paid         Paid       Unpaid
                  maternity    maternity    leave
                    leave     plus unpaid   only %      N
                   only %       leave %

First leave           46           50         4 (a)    276
Second leave          42           51         7        110
Third leave (b)       56           17         28        18
Fourth leave           0           25         75         4
All                  182          198         28       408

Notes:

(a.) Nine (75%) of these cases of unpaid leave occurred in 1995.

(b.) Figures have been rounded.

Table 4: Timing of commencement of unpaid maternity leave after
the completion of paid maternity leave, 1995-2005

                                             Per cent   Total N

Immediately following finish of paid leave     46.2        91
1-4 weeks                                      19.3        38
1-4 months                                     34.5        68
Total supplementary leave periods              100        197 (a)

Note: Excludes those who have accessed unpaid maternity
leave as their only source maternity leave.

Table 5: Duration between return from maternity leave
and termination of employment among female leave-takers
who left, 1995-2005

                                             Cumulative
                                  Per cent    per cent    Total N

Immediately following maternity     31.7        31.7        32
  leave
1 week to 6 months                  20.8        52.5        21
6 to 12 months                      13.9        66.4        14
1-2 years                           12.9        79.3        13
2-4 years                           14.9        94.2        15
4-9 years                            5.9       100.1         6
Total                                100         100       101

Table 6: Per cent of female employees accessing paid or
unpaid maternity leave 1995-2001 and part-time working
hours 1998-2005

                                                   Per cent    N

Accessed part-time hours but not paid maternity      0.4       1
  leave (a)
Accessed maternity leave but not part-time hours      58      160
Accessed maternity leave and part-time hours          42      116
All (b)                                              100      277

Notes:

(a.) This female employee worked part-time on two separate
occasions: the first was for 16 weeks in 2001, while the
second period was for 155 weeks from mid-2002 to mid-2005.
No periods of paid or unpaid maternity leave are recorded.

(b.) The total number of female employees is 277, not 276
as reported in earlier sections, as one employee working
part-time hours did not access paid or unpaid maternity leave.

Table 7: Current pay level compared with level at first
maternity leave, 1995-2005

             Current pay level of leave-takers

  Year      Same pay   Decrease    Increase
of first    category    in pay      in pay     Total N
maternity    level     category      pay        (row)
  leave       (N)      level (N)   level (N)

1995            2         14           0         16
1996            0         16           0         16
1997            2          8           0         10
1998            0          8           0          8
1999            3          6           0          9
2000            4         10           0         14
2001           12          4           0         16
2002           15          7           1         23
2003           12          2           0         14
2004           15          3           0         18
2005           15          0           0         15
All            80         78           1       159 (a)

Note: Seventy women have taken more than one period of
maternity leave; excludes women who left the organisation.