ILC87 - Report V(1) Maternity protection at work

International Labour Conference
87th Session 199 9

Report V(1)

Maternity protection at work

Revision of the Maternity Protection Convention (Revised), 1952 (No. 103), and Recommendation, 1952 (No. 95)

Fifth item on the agenda

International Labour Office Geneva

At its 268th Session (March 1997), the Governing Body of the International Labour Organization decided to put on the agenda of the 87th Session (1999) of the International Labour Conference the revision of the Maternity Protection Convention (Revised), 1952 (No. 103), and Recommendation, 1952 (No. 95). This law and practice report has accordingly been drafted to facilitate the discussion at the conference.

Maternity protection of women at work has been of core importance to the International Labour Organization since its establishment in 1919. The Maternity Protection Convention, 1919 (No. 3), was among the first instruments to be adopted. In 1952, this Convention was revised to take into consideration developments in national law and practice, especially in the realm of social security. The years since 1952 have similarly seen dramatic changes, notably in the participation of women in the workforce, and an ever growing commitment to eliminate discrimination in employment. However, the resulting increased importance of maternity protection to women at work has not resulted in a high number of ratifications of either Convention No. 3 or Convention No. 103. As of June 1997,36countries had ratified the Maternity Protection Convention (Revised), 1952 (No. 103), and 17 other countries had ratified the Maternity Protection Convention, 1919 (No. 3).

This report outlines and evaluates the key provisions of law in ILO member States which provide maternity protection to women when their work life coincides with their child-bearing years. It also incorporates examples of practice which illustrate the ways in which the maternity protection afforded to women may be more or less than that provided for by law.

Chapter 1 highlights the changes that have taken place since 1952 with respect to women and employment in ILO member States and how these changes necessitate a fresh examination of maternity protection in employment. The labour market participation rates of women have increased worldwide, strengthening their economic roles in society and the family. Women in many countries have begun to see maternity protection laws as a means to reduce discrimination in employment on the basis of their actual or potential role as mothers.

Chapter 2 surveys the scope of national laws providing for maternity protection, noting the principal inclusions and exclusions in ILO member States. Differences in scope among various pieces of national legislation regarding the provision of leave, cash benefits and medical benefits may result in uneven coverage. While a picture emerges of a move towards maternity protection for all employed women, large groups of women workers continue to be excluded.

Chapter 3 examines the maternity leave provisions of ILO member States. The duration of leave, its distribution before and after childbirth, its compulsory or non-compulsory nature, and possible extensions of leave due to illness or complications arising from pregnancy and childbirth are described. Qualifying conditions which might prevent a woman from benefiting from the standard leave allowance are also noted.

Chapter 4 addresses the fundamental employment rights -- protection from dismissal and the right to return to work -- for pregnant and nursing workers. Pregnancy today still leads to job loss and maternity leave may result in termination of employment, rather than a mere suspension of work. The chapter discusses the extent and limitations of the protection afforded by legislative measures adopted in the member States.

Chapter 5 surveys the manner in which cash and medical benefits are provided to women workers on maternity leave in ILO member States. Recent trends in social security are highlighted, and differences in scope regarding medical care and cash benefits are discussed. In addition, the chapter reviews the role of employers in providing maternity benefits in light of current practice.

Chapter 6 focuses on the occupational safety and health dimensions of maternity protection. The major health considerations with regard to the regulation of working time and the prohibition of dangerous or unhealthy types of work during pregnancy and nursing are illustrated through the approaches adopted in ILO member States to prevent exposure of working women to work detrimental to the health of mother and child. Finally, the health and economic aspects of breast-feeding are examined in the light of the widespread provision for nursing breaks during the months following return to work.

Chapter 7 looks beyond the protection of women's child-bearing role to the question of child-rearing, and examines the provision for parental, paternity and adoption leave in ILO member States. Such types of leave are often viewed as a means to offer equal opportunities for men and women to combine parenthood with professional life.

The International Labour Conference will address the question of the revision of the Maternity Protection (Revised) Convention, 1952 (No. 103), and Recommendation, 1952 (No. 95), in accordance with the double-discussion procedure set out in article 10 of the Standing Orders of the Governing Body and article 39 of its own Standing Orders. The latter article requires that this report and the accompanying questionnaire be communicated to governments not less than 18 months before the opening of the 87th Session of the Conference in 1999. So that the Office may have time to examine replies to the questionnaire and to prepare a second report, governments are requested to send their replies so as to reach the Office in Geneva not later than 30 June 1998, as the second report must be communicated to them not less than four months before the opening of the session.

The Office wishes to draw Governments' attention to article 39, paragraph 1, of the Standing Orders of the International Labour Conference, which calls on them "to consult the most representative organizations of employers and workers before finalizing their replies". The results of this consultation should be reflected in the governments' replies. Governments are requested to indicate in their replies which organizations have been so consulted.

Maternity protection in the last half century has been marked by progress in law, an evolution in workplace practice and rising social expectations regarding the rights of working women during their child-bearing years. Yet the gains registered have so far failed to resolve the fundamental problem experienced by most, if not all, working women at some point in their professional lives: unequal treatment in employment due to their reproductive role.

Such discrimination is felt ever more acutely as more women spend a greater portion of their lives in paid employment. Indeed, among the most remarkable changes to have occurred in the past 50 years has been the rapid rise in labour market participation by women. Their worldwide economic activity rates climbed from 54 per cent in 1950 to 66 per cent in 1990; they are projected to reach almost 70 per cent in the year 2010. In the more developed regions, the growth has been even more dramatic, starting from a lower initial rate of 47 per cent, but expected to climb to over 80 per cent by 2010.

Two generations ago, women typically entered the workforce in the greatest numbers in their early twenties, with many leaving a few years later to bear and raise their children. In 1950, the worldwide economic activity rate for women rose to 59 per cent in the 20 to 24 age bracket, fell to 54 per cent for women ten years older, remained relatively constant for 15 years and then fell rapidly after age 49. By 1990, worldwide economic activity rates had assumed a new pattern of high entry rates for women in their twenties, rising labour market participation throughout their thirties and forties, and declining employment from age 50 onwards. In other words, more women were spending their child-bearing years in paid employment.

FIGURE 1. WOMEN'S ECONOMIC ACTIVITIY RATES FOR THE AGE GROUP 24-50 YEARS FOR 1950, 1970, 1990 AND 2010 (WORLD, MORE DEVELOPED AND LESS DEVELOPED REGIONS) ¹

FIGURE 2. ECONOMIC ACTIVITY RATES BY SEX AND AGE GROUP FOR 1950, 1970, 1990 AND 2010 (WORLD)

At the regional level, fairly distinct patterns have emerged, demonstrating the impact of differing levels of economic development as well as cultural attitudes towards women's economic role. In Europe and Northern America in 1950, women's working lives were distinguished by relatively high rates of economic activity in the early twenties, by a second, but lower peak in the forties, and with lower rates during the child-bearing years. In the past two decades, however, this pattern has been largely replaced by one marked by high entry rates in the twenties and a continuous rise into the forties, thus coming to resemble more closely the pattern characteristic of male employment.

FIGURE 3. WOMEN'S ECONOMIC ACTIVITY RATES BY AGE GROUP FOR 1950, 1970, 1990 AND 2010 (EUROPE AND NORTHERN AMERICA)

In Latin America and the Caribbean in 1950, women's highest rate of economic activity was 27 per cent for the 20 to 24 age group, falling to 21 per cent during the remaining child-bearing years. In Oceania in 1950, the initially high activity rate of 64 per cent for the 15- to 19-year age bracket dropped precipitously as women entered their child-bearing years, never to attain more than 27 per cent after age 30. Both these regions have seen women's activity rates more than double and, for some age brackets, almost triple in the intervening 40 years. More women in these regions are spending more of their early child-bearing years in paid employment.

FIGURE 4. WOMEN'S ECONOMIC ACTIVITY RATES BY AGE GROUP FOR 1950, 1970, 1990 AND 2010 (LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN AND OCEANIA)

Africa and Asia present a different pattern of women's activity rates, since these are high throughout life and have evolved comparatively little since 1950. Nonetheless, a rise in participation is expected by 2010, with African women maintaining 60 to 66 per cent activity rates throughout their principal child-bearing years, and Asian women's rates rising continuously from 67 per cent in the 20 to 24 age group to 75 per cent in the 35 to 39 age group.

FIGURE 5. WOMEN'S ECONOMIC ACTIVITY RATES BY AGE GROUP FOR 1950, 1970, 1990 AND 2010 (AFRICA AND ASIA)

The notion that men are the sole providers for women and children has rapidly become a myth of the past. Nowadays, an increasing number of households in all regions of the world depend on two earners to maintain a suitable standard of living. In many countries, women's earned income is vital for the survival of the family. A recent study showed that 59 per cent of European working women and 55 per cent of their counterparts in the United States supplied half or more of their family's household income, with one out of four women in Europe providing the total household income.²In India, an estimated 60 million people live in households maintained by women. Worldwide, women provide the main source of income in approximately 30 per cent of households, while the vast majority of male-headed households have women members who contribute labour, income and other forms of support.³

What are the implications of these changes? First, the number of women working throughout their child-bearing years is escalating, a fact which makes adequate maternity protection even more imperative. Not only is maternity leave and appropriate medical care essential to enable a woman to retain or regain her health and to return to work, but income replacement during her leave period has become indispensable for the well-being of herself, her child and her family.

Second, as joint breadwinning becomes the norm, discrimination in employment on the basis of actual or potential maternity has implications for the whole of society. Indeed, the positive momentum signalled above can hardly conceal a troubling underlying reality. In all parts of the world, working women who become pregnant are faced with the threat of job loss, suspended earnings and increased health risks due to inadequate safeguards for their employment and the rights which derive therefrom. Their situation has evolved only slowly. As the world approaches the new century, governments and the social partners must face the fact that maternity protection for vast numbers of working women is still barely assured. Protecting their health, ensuring their employment and providing a reasonable level of income to employed women before and after childbirth remains a challenge. A momentous task lies ahead.

Most of the 200 million pregnancies which occur worldwide each year result in the birth of a live baby to a healthy mother. In recent decades, tremendous efforts have been deployed to raise women's overall health security and to improve survival rates for infants. The impact of these efforts is evident in the fact that between 1970 and 1994 female life expectancy rose as the total fertility rate declined in all regions of the world.⁴ Infant mortality rates between 1960 and 1994 dropped precipitously, by three-fifths in the Arab States (from 166 per 1,000 live births to 67), by 70 per cent in East Asia (from 146 to 41), by 65 per cent in Latin America and the Caribbean (from 107 to 38), by more than half in South Asia (from 163 to 73) and by more than 40 per cent in sub-Saharan Africa (from 166 to 97)^.5This advance has come about in parallel with high or rising rates of women's employment.

Yet, despite these improvements, maternal and infant mortality rates remain unacceptably high. Indeed, the disparity in maternal mortality rates between rich and poor countries is greater than any other public health indicator. Of the more than 500,000 maternal deaths which are recorded each year, an estimated 99 per cent occur in developing countries.⁶ Worldwide the maternal mortality rate is currently estimated at 416 per 100,000 live births, with industrial countries experiencing 31 per 100,000 and the least developed countries witnessing 1,030 per 100,000.⁷ In 1989, the average lifetime risk of dying of a pregnancy-related cause was between one in 15 and one in 50 in the developing world, compared with a risk varying from one in 4,000 to one in 10,000 in the developed world.

These figures, however shocking, represent only the tip of the iceberg. They include only the officially reported deaths and may thus account for only a fraction of the total number. Nor do they make reference to the millions more women who suffer acute or chronic damage to their health from the untreated complications of pregnancy and labour. Some 20 million cases of severe maternal morbidity occur annually. Furthermore, although infant mortality rates have dropped markedly in recent decades, the fact remains that each year some 4 million infants die within the first month of life, two-thirds of these within the first week.⁸

It is against this backdrop of extensive, largely preventable human suffering that an international Convention seeking to promote maternity protection should be viewed.

The portion of maternal mortality and morbidity affecting women employed in the formal sector is not known. Some observers note, however, that women who remain employed throughout their pregnancy, are granted maternity leave and return to work after that leave are far less likely to suffer negative outcomes of pregnancy thanks to their greater command of economic resources and their greater access to prenatal, confinement and postnatal health care. Indeed, a strengthening of employment rights to avoid dismissal due to pregnancy and to ensure that maternity leave does not result in discriminatory termination of employment is seen as a fundamental element of maternity protection.

While women's employment rates have risen in many regions of the world, the quality of their employment remains far below that of men. Compared to men, women still face unequal hiring standards, unequal opportunities for training and retraining, unequal pay for work of equal value, and unequal promotion prospects. They also face a greater likelihood of experiencing unemployment and poverty.⁹

These inequities are so widely recognized that more than 150 countries have assumed international obligations to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of employment, in particular by ensuring "the right to the same employment opportunities, including the application of the same criteria for selection . . .; the right to free choice of profession and employment, the right to promotion, job security and all benefits and conditions of service and the right to receive vocational training and retraining . . .; the right to equal remuneration . . . and to equal treatment in respect of work of equal value", among other rights.¹⁰

Major international conferences have further highlighted the need to eliminate gender discrimination in employment, notably the World Summit for Social Development (Copenhagen, 1995)¹¹and the Fourth World Conference on Women (Beijing, 1995).¹²The International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo, 1994) specifically called for the elimination of "discriminatory practices by employers against women, such as those based on proof of contraceptive use or pregnancy status".¹³

Discriminatory hiring based on potential or actual maternity may involve practices which enter deeply into the private lives of the workers involved. In some countries, employers may require a negative pregnancy test, a gynaecological examination, or a medical certificate attesting to sterilization as a condition of employment. For example, the ILO Committee of Experts reporting on the application of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), noted from a report that, in one country, "numerous employers, with impunity, require[d] women seeking employment or wishing to keep their jobs to furnish certificates attesting to their sterilization".¹⁴In a number of countries, the elimination of such practices has become the subject of legislative action. Brazil, for example, has recently passed legislation imposing strong penalties on employers who require a certificate of sterilization as a condition of employment.¹⁵ Colombia has issued a resolution which restricts the employer's right to demand a pregnancy test of a jobseeker to employment or occupations where pregnancies might be at risk.¹⁶ The Ministry of Labour of Chile has prepared draft legislation which would prohibit employers from demanding medical certificates to establish non-pregnancy at the time of recruitment or requiring a commitment from the employee that she will not become pregnant during her contract.¹⁷

In some countries, employers inquire about candidates' intentions with regard to child-bearing during the recruitment process. Intrusive questions may be asked regarding sexual activity or the use of birth control.¹⁸Some countries are making efforts to put an end to such practices. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Equal Opportunities Commission has issued a Code of Practice for the elimination of discrimination on the ground of sex and marriage and the promotion of equal opportunity in employment. The code recommends that interview questions be related to the requirements of the job and that "questions about marriage plans or family intentions should not be asked, as they could be construed as showing bias against women. Information necessary for personal records can be collected after a job offer has been made".¹⁹

Once hired, women face potential job loss should they become pregnant and their pregnancy become known. Termination of employment on the grounds of pregnancy is said to occur even in countries which outlaw the practice.²⁰In the United Kingdom, more than one in eight of the inquiries received by the Equal Opportunities Commission relate to dismissal due to pregnancy.²¹ In Spain, the General Union of Workers (UGT) observed that employers dismissed women or did not renew their contracts on account of pregnancy and, in certain situations, employers offered temporary workers employment for an indefinite period if they relinquished their maternity rights. This was said to occur despite the availability of procedures of redress for victims of such discrimination.²²

The vulnerability of women workers to dismissal during maternity leave is an ongoing concern. According to the data of the Directorate of Public Prosecutions and Labour Inspection of the Russian Federation, the number of violations of women's labour rights has increased significantly in recent years. The unlawful dismissal of women during maternity leave or during the period of nursing has become a common fact, particularly when enterprises are restructured or change ownership.²³ Dismissal during maternity leave was prohibited in Maternity Protection Conventions Nos. 3 and 103, and the period of protection was extended from the notification of pregnancy through at least the first month after return to work in Recommendation No. 95.

Women who return to work after childbirth face the task of reconciling their professional lives with their new family roles. Most will cope with the strains of a double day: fulfilling performance requirements on the job while striving to meet the needs of their child for nurturing. Some will discover, however, that their return to work is marked by resentment from colleagues or less favourable treatment by employers.24 A recent study of 793 Chilean workers who returned to work after maternity leave found that ²⁴ per cent of them had experienced some type of negative treatment. Most frequently, this included transfer to a lower position, job loss, verbal abuse, social isolation or "shunning".²⁵

Professional women may find themselves subtly or directly placed in job assignments which carry less status and offer fewer opportunities for advancement. Unspoken obstacles -- from early evening business meetings to the assumption of disinterest in more challenging work assignments -- may effectively prevent full reintegration on the job, causing some women to renounce their ambitions and to resign themselves to lesser employment prospects than their qualifications would warrant. Forfeited career opportunities represent not only long-term earnings loss for the woman and her family, but in cumulative terms, a tremendous reduction of women's potential contribution to economic growth.²⁶Discrimination on the basis of maternity is costly: to women, their families and society as a whole.

In the past 50 years, the principle of equality between men and women has been firmly anchored in the constitutions and national legislations of countries around the world. Its embodiment in law has compelled a profound rethinking of the status of women, their role in society and their contribution to the economy. It has forged the recognition that the improvement of women's employment situation may depend less on protective measures than on equal opportunity and treatment in the workplace. Women need to have their work remunerated at rates established without discrimination based on sex to establish the material basis for equality. The adoption by the ILO of the Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100), and its accompanying Recommendation (No. 90) established the principle of non-discrimination between men and women in respect of remuneration to ensure equal pay for work of equal value.

The principle of non-discrimination was taken a step further with the adoption of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), and its accompanying Recommendation (No. 111). Discrimination was defined in Article 1, paragraph 1, to include:

In Article 2, ratifying member States were required to declare and pursue a national policy designed to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of employment and occupation, with a view to eliminating discrimination.

Since the adoption of that Convention, a gradual shift has occurred in the social and labour legislation governing women's employment. There has been a discernible move away from a purely protective approach, aimed at limiting women's exposure to the hazards of the industrial workplace, to one based on equal rights in employment and the elimination of unfair practices. The protective legislation which characterized the first half of the century has been revisited, questioned and, in some instances, overturned in light of its discriminatory effects. This includes the general prohibition of night work for women, the gender-based limitation of working hours, and the exclusion of women from certain occupations or activities due to sex rather than to their capacity to perform the job.

In 1975, ILO member States adopted a Declaration on Equality of Opportunity and Treatment for Women Workers, which linked the prohibition of discrimination against women on the grounds of pregnancy and childbirth with the right to employment protection during pregnancy and maternity leave as well as the specific protections provided in Convention No. 103. Article 8, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Declaration provided:

Through this Declaration, ILO member States expressed their belief that equality of opportunity and treatment of women workers can only be achieved through a combination of legal measures: the elimination of maternity as a source of discrimination; employment security throughout pregnancy; the right to maternity leave and benefits; and the right to return to work without loss of acquired rights. The special protection afforded to women workers during pregnancy and after childbirth was not seen as an exception to equal treatment, but rather a condition for non-discrimination in employment.

The challenge for member States is clear: to ensure that in the 21st century, maternity protection achieves the double goal of safeguarding health and ensuring employment rights in order to enable men and women to work together on the basis of equality.

¹ Data used for the figures in this chapter were taken from ILO, Bureau of Labour Statistics: Economically active population, 1950-2010, fourth edition (Geneva, December 1996).

² H. Wilkinson and I. Briscoe: Parental leave: The price of family values? (London, DEMOS, 1996), p. 7.

⁴UNDP: Human Development Report 1997 (New York, 1997), No. 47, Table 10: Regional aggregates of human development indicators.

⁶ United Nations: Women: Challenges to the year 2000 (New York, 1991), p. 20.

⁸WHO: Mother-baby package: Implementing safe motherhood in countries, document
no. WHO/FHE /MSM/94.11(Rev.1) (Geneva, 1996), p. 7.

¹⁰These and other rights are included in Article 11 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. As of 25 March 1997, 97 countries have signed and 156 have ratified or acceded to this Convention.

¹¹Paragraph 56(b) of the Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action includes "eliminating gender discrimination . . . in hiring, wages, access to credit, benefits, promotion, training, career development, job assignment, working conditions, job security and social security benefits".

¹²The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action included as strategic objective F.5 the elimination of occupational segregation and all forms of employment discrimination. Paragraph 178(c) encourages member States of the United Nations to "enact and enforce laws and develop workplace policies against gender discrimination in the labour market, . . . in hiring and promotion, and in the extension of employment benefits and social security, as well as regarding discriminatory working conditions and sexual harassment". In addition, "mechanisms should be developed for the regular review and monitoring of such laws".

¹³Programme of Action adopted at the International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo, 5-13 September 1994), para. 4.4(f).

¹⁴Report presented to the Federal Senate by a Joint Parliamentary Committee of Investigation on the Incidence of Massive Sterilization of Brazilian Women, cited in ILO: Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report III (Part 4A), International Labour Conference, 80th Session, 1993, p. 321.

¹⁵Act No. 9029 to prohibit the requirement of a certificate of pregnancy or sterilization and other discriminatory practices, for the purposes of admission to work or maintenance of the legal employment relationship, dated 13 April 1995 (Diário Oficial, No. 73, 17 April 1995, p. 1).

¹⁶Ministry of Labour and Social Security Resolution No. 3716 restricting the requirement of a pregnancy test for obtaining employment in both the private and public sectors to employment or occupations where pregnancies might be at risk, dated 3 November 1994. Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations: "Individual observation concerning the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111)," in ILOLEX 1997 database (Geneva, ILO, February 1995).

¹⁷M.R. Velásquez: "Four workers' representatives speak," in Spotlight, No. 14, June 1997, p. 2 (newsletter of the Labour and Population Programme, Development Policies Department, ILO, Geneva).

¹⁸See ILO: Protection of workers' personal data: An ILO code of practice (Geneva, 1997), which states that "An employer should not collect personal data concerning a worker's sex life" (para. 6.5) and that "medical personal data should not be collected except in conformity with national legislation" (para. 6.7). If a worker is asked questions inconsistent with these principles and the worker gives an inaccurate or incomplete answer, the worker should not be subject to termination of the employment relationship or other disciplinary measure (para. 6.8). In so doing, "the code shares the view of many national courts that, especially in connection with hiring procedures, workers are justified in refusing to answer questions that are incompatible with the code" (para. 6.8).

²⁰The Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 (No. 158), specifies in Article 5 that pregnancy shall not constitute a valid reason for termination.

²²ILO: Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report III (Part 4A), International Labour Conference, 80th Session (Geneva, 1993), pp. 366-367.

²³Information provided to the ILO by the Ministry of Labour and Social Development of the Russian Federation, March 1997.

²⁴The Beijing Platform of Action calls for the elimination of "discriminatory practices by employers on the basis of women's reproductive roles and functions", paragraph 178(d).

²⁵H. Henríquez, V. Riquelme and T. Cárdenas: Las normas que protegen la maternidad en Chile: El comportamiento de las empresas (Santiago, Dirección del Trabajo, Departamento de Estudios, 1996).

²⁶ ILO: Breaking through the glass ceiling: Women in management (Geneva, 1997).

A woman worker who becomes pregnant is immediately confronted by myriad employment-related issues, the most important of which include the effects upon her job of her pregnancy and her absence from work before and after childbirth. Will she be protected against dismissal during pregnancy and leave? Will she have the right to cash and medical benefits? If her job is physically demanding, will her employer be required to temporarily alter her work duties to accommodate her health? The answers to these questions are found in the specific legislation governing maternity protection provisions in her country. The definition of scope will determine her eligibility for protection.

The provisions of law defining the scope of persons to whom the maternity protection apply vary widely from country to country. In this chapter, these provisions as established by national legislation will be examined in light of those prescribed by the Maternity Protection Convention (Revised), 1952 (No. 103).

In Convention No. 103, the term "woman" is broadly defined as"any female person, irrespective of age, nationality, race or creed, whether married or unmarried", and "child" means "any child whether born of marriage or not"^.¹In so defining "women," Convention No. 103 lays down the principle of non-discrimination with respect to all women workers. The instrument thus applies to all women without qualification, if they are employed in the specified types of undertakings or occupations.

The scope established by Convention No. 103 is quite broad. It covers women employed in industrial undertakings and non-industrial and agricultural occupations, including women wage-earners working at home.² The term "industrial undertakings" is further defined with detailed descriptions of industries covered in four general sectors, whether public or private: mining; manufacturing and power generation; construction of buildings and public works; and the transport of passengers and goods by rail, sea or inland waterway. The term "non-industrial occupation" is defined to include the following types of undertaking, whether public or private: commercial establishments; postal and telecommunication services; establishments and administrative services in which the persons employed are mainly engaged in clerical work; newspaper undertakings; hotels, boarding houses, restaurants, clubs, cafés and other refreshment houses; establishments for the treatment and care of the sick, infirm, destitute and of orphans; theatres and places of entertainment; and domestic work for wages in private households. Thus Convention No. 103 covers four types of industrial undertaking and their branches and a variety of occupations carried on in numerous non-industrial undertakings, whether public or private, including two classes of occupation: women employed in the agricultural occupations³and homeworkers.

Besides establishing broad coverage, Convention No. 103 allows countries to provide for limited exclusions. In addition to allowing countries to exempt undertakings in which only members of the employer's family are employed,⁴ Convention No. 103 allows member States to provide for five additional types of exceptions at the time of ratification: certain categories of non-industrial occupations; occupations carried on in agricultural undertakings (other than plantations); domestic work for wages in private households; women wage-earners working at home; and undertakings engaged in the transport of passengers or goods by sea. Should a Member make a declaration providing for exceptions, it is required to make periodic reports concerning the application of the Convention to these excluded categories.⁵

Ascertaining the exact extent to which the laws of each country cover the types of undertakings and occupations referred to in Convention No. 103 is difficult due to the variety of ways in maternity protection is provided in different countries^.6 In many countries, all major provisions relating to maternity protection are found within a single labour code, in which case there is a single definition of the persons to whom the provisions apply. In others, however, maternity protection provisions are contained in various pieces of legislation which relate to specific aspects of maternity protection, such as employment protection, social security, health and safety and equal opportunity, to name the most common. In such cases, each legislative instrument will have a separate provision describing the persons to whom the text applies. While the scope may be defined identically among the different legislative schemes, this is not always the case, and coverage may also be modified by regulations or collective bargaining agreements.

The differences among scope provisions of relevant legislation and the occasional lack of clarity in definitions used may give rise to gaps in coverage which are difficult to assess. Thus, within a particular country, a woman may be entitled to some aspects of maternity protection, but not others. The most common instance is that of an employed woman who has a right to maternity leave under the general labour code, but no right to cash benefits under social security because coverage for cash benefits is narrower than that for maternity leave.⁷

A survey of the manner in which national legislation addresses the persons, sectors of economic activity and categories of workers covered shows that the scope is wide enough in many countries to include the undertakings and occupations covered in Convention No. 103. Nonetheless, significant problems still exist with respect to coverage of women employed in agriculture, or those working as homeworkers, domestic workers or on a casual, contract or temporary basis.

The scope of maternity protection under national legislation in some countries includes to all employed women, although important restrictions exist with regard to age, residence and income level, for example.

The term "woman" is generally defined broadly in a manner which accords with the approach taken in Convention No. 103, but some restrictions have been found in the legislation of a few countries. Some specify an age range for eligibility for benefits, although this generally corresponds to or exceeds a woman's child-bearing years. For example, this is the case with regard to qualification for cash benefits in Dominica, where women between the ages of 16 and 60 years are eligible; in the Dominican Republic, where women between the ages of 14 and 60 years are eligible; and in Finland, where women workers between the ages of 16 and 64 years are eligible. Medical benefits may also be limited to legal residents, as discussed in Chapter 5.

There are other restrictions upon women who are eligible. Women may be excluded from coverage if they earn too high a salary, as in South Africa. Women working as high-level managers in Paraguay and managers in Singapore are excluded. In some countries, eligibility to leave may also be limited to a certain number of pregnancies. In rare instances, maternity protection rights may be denied if an unmarried woman becomes pregnant.⁸

Even if a worker falls within the scope of maternity protection as provided within national legislation, she may not be eligible for benefits because of the existence of time-in-service requirements or minimum contribution levels to qualify for social security benefits. Qualifying periods of three to 12 months of employment are frequently found in national laws and collective agreements with regard to access to benefits. While technically not part of the scope definitions, eligibility requirements operate as a means to narrow the application of the maternity protection provision. Thus, women who would otherwise be covered are not protected for the first months or year on the job.

There are few examples in national legislation in which the coverage of industrial and non-industrial undertakings is defined with the detail of Convention No. 103. While types of undertakings are often specified, more often coverage is defined according to economic sectors, whether public or private.

In many countries, such as Burundi, Chile, Ecuador, Egypt, Haiti and Honduras, maternity protection applies to women in the public and private sectors, though the law may also contain specific exclusions. The terms public and private undertakings are also used in countries such as Indonesia. Such perimeters lay the groundwork for broad coverage, even if the legislation also provides for exclusions.

Public sector workers, including civil servants and other types of workers employed by national, state, provincial or local government, are usually covered by maternity protection provisions under separate legislation, as in Ecuador, Greece, India, Japan, Luxembourg, Madagascar and Togo. Often the provisions are more favourable than those applicable to the private sector. For example, public servants may have a right to longer maternity leave or cash benefits equal to a greater percentage of their salary.

Beyond including the public and private sectors within the definition of undertakings covered, some countries specifically mention economic sectors when defining scope. Industry or industrial establishments in general are covered, as in Cambodia, Germany, Lebanon and Nepal. Countries may also list types of industries. Factories and mining are specifically covered in Bangladesh and India as are mining and construction in the Islamic Republic of Iran and transport systems in Cambodia. Some countries also make specific mention of non-industrial sectors. Commercial undertakings are covered in Ghana, Greece, India and Japan, clerical services in Ghana and establishments employing persons for circus and other performances in India.

In national legislation, there are few exclusions by economic sector, although in some countries, workers employed in the transport of goods and those employed in non-industrial undertakings, such as theatres and newspapers, are excluded. There are also a few countries in which women working in the fishing industry are excluded, an exception not specifically mentioned in the Convention. In general, however, national legislation in the majority of countries provides for maternity protection to women employed in industrial and non-industrial enterprises in the private sector.

Women workers in the agricultural sector are specifically covered in countries such as Bahrain, Belize, Cambodia, Czech Republic, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Islamic Republic of Iran, Italy, Lebanon, Greece, Hungary and Madagascar, though often coverage is provided by separate legislation. In some countries, only permanent agricultural workers are covered, as in Angola and Egypt. In India, agricultural workers employed by plantations are covered, as are those working on tea estates in Nepal and Pakistan. In recent years, maternity protection coverage has been extended to agricultural workers in a number of countries, including Argentina, Ecuador and Portugal.

However, in many countries, agricultural workers are not covered, as in Bolivia, Brazil, Dominica, El Salvador, Lesotho, Peru, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey and Yemen. This exclusion of agricultural workers may affect a large percentage of the female workforce in some countries, where a large portion of the population works in the agricultural sector. For example, 28 per cent of women working in Bolivia work in agriculture; 10 per cent in Brazil; 86 per cent in Lesotho; 26 per cent in Peru; 34 per cent in the Philippines; 16 per cent in Saudi Arabia; 84 per cent in Sudan; 74 per cent in Swaziland; 60 per cent in the Syrian Arab Republic; 84 per cent in Turkey; and 45 per cent in Yemen^.9 The exclusion of agricultural workers from the scope of maternity protection thus means that enormous numbers of women are without protection.

Characteristics of enterprises are in some cases used to define scope in national legislation. One such characteristic is the size of the enterprise, in recognition of the difficulties which small employers may have in complying with the law. A survey of employers in the United Kingdom found that four out of ten establishments with fewer than 25 employees experienced difficulty in covering the duties of a woman worker out on maternity leave, as compared to two out of ten establishments with 25 to 499 employees and fewer than one in ten establishments with more than 500 employees.¹⁰ In the United States, the Family and Medical Leave Act applies only to businesses with 50 or more employees within a 75-mile radius, while the federal Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination against women on the basis of pregnancy, applies only to businesses with 15 or more employees.

Businesses employing less than a certain number of employees are excluded from coverage in some countries. For example, in India, commercial establishments employing fewer than ten employees are excluded, as are industrial enterprises of that size in Myanmar and Nepal, and in Jordan, Republic of Korea and Kuwait, enterprises employing less than five employees are not covered. Enterprise size criteria may effectively exclude large numbers of women employees from coverage, depending upon their distribution in the labour market. For example, in the Republic of Korea, 65 per cent of employed women work in enterprises employing fewer than five workers,¹¹ whereas leave and benefits are accorded to workers in enterprises employing five or more permanent workers.

Other enterprise characteristics specified when defining scope may include their religious or charitable nature, as in Cambodia, and/or whether the enterprise is a family business. Enterprises in which members of the same family are employed are excluded from coverage in many countries, such as the Dominican Republic, Guyana, Haiti, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Grenada, Mexico, Myanmar, Pakistan, Saint Lucia, United Republic of Tanzania, Tunisia and Uganda. Sometimes the exclusion is limited to family workers employed by a spouse or parent, as in the province of New South Wales in Australia, or to family members living in the same household, as in the Republic of Korea.

Aside from defining coverage based upon the sector in which a woman works and the characteristics of the enterprise in which she is employed, some national legislation also takes account of the category of worker or form of work performed. A variety of worker categories are specifically mentioned in national legislation as included in coverage, such as acrobats, actors, artisans, artists, athletes, domestic workers, homeworkers, intellectual workers, insurance workers, labourers or manual workers, liberal professions (such as doctors and lawyers), sales representatives, service workers, taxi drivers, as well as certain unspecified professions as may be contained in legal regulations.

Various categories of worker are specifically excluded, such as women working in fishing and trapping in the Northwest Territories of Canada, homeworkers, domestic workers, salespersons, workers not covered by collective bargaining agreements and part-time workers. Of these, the most significant groups are part-time workers, homeworkers and domestic workers.

Women constitute a large percentage of the part-time labour force. Among OECD countries, women's share in part-time employment in 1995 was 63 per cent in Greece, 69 per cent in Canada, 70 per cent in Japan, 74 per cent in Australia and 88 per cent in Belgium. Women engaged in part-time work represent 8 per cent of all employed women in Greece, 28 per cent in Canada, 35 per cent in Japan, 43 per cent in Australia and 30 per cent in Belgium.¹²The same year, 85 per cent of the net additional jobs taken by women in the European Union were part-time positions.¹³ While part-time workers are implicitly included in Convention No. 103 if they are employed within the covered sectors or occupations, the Part-Time Work Convention, 1994 (No. 175), specifically requires ratifying countries to ensure that part-time workers receive conditions equivalent to those of comparable full-time workers with regard to maternity protection, inter alia, it being understood that pecuniary entitlements may be determined in proportion to hours of work or earnings.

Part-time workers are usually included within the scope of maternity protection in national legislation. Sometimes the law specifically states that part-time workers are covered, as in Côte d'Ivoire, Czech Republic, Cuba and Grenada. While part-time workers are seldom specifically excluded,¹⁴ they may have difficulty meeting the eligibility requirements for benefits, in the form of time-in-service requirements or minimum periods of contribution which may take the part-time worker much longer to fulfil than a full-time worker. For example, in Spain, a woman worker must work for 180 days to qualify for benefits. Because the days are counted as eight-hour days, a part-time worker will need to work for a greater number of days to meet the minimum threshold. In this way, a large number of women workers may fall outside of maternity protection.

Changing enterprise structures and labour market conditions have led to an increase in home work over the past 20 years. Homeworkers are normally understood to be workers who produce goods or provide services for an employer in a place of the worker's own choosing, usually the home. Surveys indicate there are high percentages of women among homeworkers, ranging from 90 to 95 per cent in Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan and the Netherlands.¹⁵One survey focusing upon the Australian clothing industry showed that 95 per cent of the homeworkers were women. In the developing countries, the percentages of women are also high. In India, almost 90 per cent, or close to 2 million, of bidi (cigarette) workers are women. In the Brazilian clothing industry, close to 90 per cent of the homeworkers are women. In Algeria, a 1991 survey indicated that 97 per cent of the homeworkers were women. The Home Work Convention, 1996 (No. 177), and the Home Work Recommendation, 1996 (No. 184), provide that equality of treatment between homeworkers and other wage-earners shall be promoted in relation to maternity protection, inter alia.

Homeworkers are specifically covered by maternity protection laws in several countries, including Chile, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, France, Guinea, Germany, Hungary and Iceland. In Austria and the Netherlands, the social security laws cover homeworkers whose earnings exceed a minimum level. However, homeworkers are specifically excluded in countries such as Argentina, Barbados, Philippines, Swaziland and Turkey. For the most part, national laws do not specifically address homeworkers, who fall within the scope of protection only if they are considered wage-earners or "employed" persons, rather than self-employed persons or independent contractors. Homeworkers' advocacy groups allege that employers sometimes require homeworkers to work on a casual, rather than permanent, basis in order to avoid liability for social security payments.¹⁶

Whether in industrialized or non-industrialized countries, a large portion of domestic workers are women. Some countries, such as Belgium, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Fiji, Greece, Guinea, Honduras, Italy, Jamaica and Morocco, specifically include domestic workers within the coverage of maternity protection legislation. In some countries, such as Algeria and Sao Tome and Principe, domestic servants are covered, but under separate legislation. However, it is far more frequent for domestic workers to be specifically excluded from the scope of the law, as in Angola, Argentina, Cambodia, El Salvador, Egypt, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Japan, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Nepal, Peru, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

These exclusions sometimes affect a substantial numbers of women. In the Philippines, 766,200 workers, mostly female, were employed as domestic workers in 1995.¹⁷

In recent years, there has been a rise in the number of women employed as casual workers, contract workers and temporary workers. For instance, in 1995 in the United Kingdom, 770,000 women, or 8 per cent of the female workforce, described their job as "not permanent", involving, for example, employment on "fixed-period contracts", "agency temping" or "casual work".¹⁸ These categories -- casual, contract and temporary workers -- are sometimes included within the coverage of the law, as are contract workers in Belgium, and temporary and casual workers in the Dominican Republic. In Dominica, temporary workers are covered after two weeks of employment, and in Colombia, temporary and casual workers are covered after one month of employment.

Often, however, such workers are excluded from coverage. Casual workers are specifically excluded in such countries as Angola, Australia, Bahrain, Belize, Brazil, Guyana, Haiti, Kuwait, Saint Lucia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Viet Nam, Yemen and Zaire and temporary workers are excluded in Bahrain and Kuwait. Even if these categories of employee are not specifically excluded, many will fall outside the scope of protection because they may not be able to satisfy the eligibility requirements based upon time-in-service or a minimum period of contributions to social security.

Despite the wide variety of ways in which scope is articulated within each country, this survey of the legislation indicates that the scope of women covered by the legislation in most countries approaches or exceeds that prescribed by Convention No. 103 and is moving towards broad coverage for all employed women. Women are generally covered across the industrial and non-industrial sectors and in both the public and private sectors. In addition, ILO member States are extending coverage for benefits to categories of workers who were once excluded. For example, domestic workers are now covered in Brazil, Jamaica and Portugal; agricultural workers in Argentina, Ecuador and Portugal; and part-time workers in the Côte d'Ivoire, Singapore and Spain. Even women who are self-employed have been included within the scope of benefits in some countries, such as Finland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. Such extensions have a very positive impact upon the lives of women workers.

However, significant gaps still exist with respect to the agricultural sector, as well as the categories of workers analysed above, notably part-time workers, homeworkers, domestic workers, and casual, contract and temporary workers. While these gaps are lessening, much remains to be done to ensure that their legal protection becomes effective. The concern expressed by the International Labour Conference in its resolution on equal opportunities and equal treatment for men and women in employment remains relevant today:¹⁹"Priority consideration should be given, as appropriate to national circumstances, to the gradual extension of maternity protection to women in all sectors of activity and enterprises of all sizes, including women who are casual, temporary, part-time, sub-contract and home-based workers as well as self-employed and family workers".

¹When Convention No. 3 was revised, the new Convention (No. 103) added the words "race or creed".

²Convention No. 103 extends the scope that was first provided in Convention No. 3, which covered "public or private industrial or commercial undertakings, or in any branch thereof", to include women employed in non-industrial occupations, agricultural occupations and homeworkers.

³The Plantations Convention, 1958 (No. 110), also contains maternity protection provisions, but its scope is limited to all plantation workers, which is a subset of the category agricultural workers found in Convention No. 103.

⁴Convention No. 3 contains a similar exemption with a slightly different wording: countries may exempt "undertakings in which only members of the same family are employed".

⁵Of the 34 countries that have ratified Convention No. 103, only four have made a declaration excepting these categories: Austria (domestic work), Brazil (agricultural and domestic work), the Netherlands (agricultural and domestic work), and Spain (undertakings engaged in the transport of passengers by sea).

⁶ILO: Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report III(4), International Labour Conference, 49th Session (Geneva, 1965), para. 65, p. 197.

⁷The possibility of entitlement to maternity leave without entitlement to cash benefits is well-illustrated by the differing provisions defining scope in Convention No. 103 and Convention No. 102 concerning minimum standards of social security.

Convention No. 103 covers women employed in whole sectors and whole classes of occupations. Convention No. 102, on the other hand, describes the persons protected in terms of minimum percentages of three prescribed classes: (1) not less than 50 per cent of prescribed classes of employees; (2) by prescribed classes of the economically active population constituting not less than 20 per cent of all residents; and (3) not less than 50 per cent of prescribed classes of residents. For countries with insufficiently developed economies that choose to apply the Convention progressively, women who fall into prescribed classes of employees constituting not less than 50 per cent of all employees in industrial workplaces employing at least 20 employees are covered. Whereas the spouses of covered employees are eligible for benefits, employed women falling outside the percentage of the workforce in the prescribed class would fail to qualify for benefits.

⁹United Nations: The world's women 1995: Trends and statistics (New York, 1995), pp. 141-145.

¹⁰C. Callender, N. Millward, S. Lissenburgh and J. Forth: Maternity rights and benefits in Britain, 1996 (London, Policy Studies Institute, 1997).

¹¹The equality of opportunity and treatment for workers and family responsibilities, unpublished report prepared for the ILO (Bangkok, 1997).

¹²OECD: "OECD in figures: Statistics on the member countries, 1997 edition", in OECD Observer, No. 206, Supplement (Paris, June-July 1997), pp. 10-11.

¹⁴Examples of countries in which part-time workers are specifically excluded are Belize (if they work less than eight hours per week), Dominica (if they work less than 21 hours per week), South Africa, and Trinidad and Tobago (less than ten hours per week).

¹⁵ILO: Home work, Report V(1), International Labour Conference, 82nd Session 1995 (Geneva, 1995).

¹⁶See, e.g., European Homeworking Group: "Portugal: Hidden hands", in Homeworkers in Europe (Leeds, Summer 1997), pp. 6-7.

¹⁷M.A. Abrera-Mangahas: "General situation of child domestic workers in the Philippines", in ILO-IPEC: Consultation proceedings: Final report, National NGO Consultation on Child Domestic Workers in the Philippines, 2-4 August 1996 (Quezon City, Philippines).

¹⁸F. Sly: "Women in the labour market: Results from the spring 1995 Labour Force Survey", in Labour market trends (London, March 1996), p. 94.

¹⁹Resolution on equal opportunities and equal treatment for men and women in employment, adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 71st Session, Geneva, 1985.

No one will deny the particular physiological demands associated with pregnancy and confinement. As an indispensable means of protecting the health of any woman wage-earner and her child, the mother's right to a period of rest when a child is born, together with a guarantee of being able to resume work after the break with adequate means of supporting herself and her family, is the core element of any instrument seeking to reconcile women's procreative role with the demands of paid employment. The importance of this right, which is enshrined in the Maternity Protection Convention (Revised), 1952 (No. 103),¹ is emphasized by the fact that the Convention in question does not make it subject to a length of service requirement. The only condition specified by Convention No. 103, and by the Maternity Protection Convention, 1919 (No. 3), before it, is the presentation of a medical certificate stating the presumed confinement date. The obligation to inform the employer is also the only condition envisaged at European level by Council Directive 92/85 of the European Commission on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breast-feeding, ensuring that a woman wage-earner can exercise her right to maternity leave without the risk of losing her job and can benefit from other protective measures.²

The present chapter will address the topic of maternity leave as so defined, that is to say, leave whose purpose is to safeguard the health of a woman employee and that of her child during the perinatal period, whether immediately before or after the birth. Other types of leave linked to the birth or arrival in a family of a young child, natural or adopted, and aimed at promoting the upbringing of a child and reconciling family and work responsibilities are dealt with in chapter 7. Nevertheless, it is sometimes difficult to draw a distinction between these types of leave and maternity leave. The distinction tends to become blurred, especially where parental leave is not granted in addition to maternity leave but takes the place of it.

The analysis made by the ILO of different national legislations and practices based on information available to it at the time of drafting the present report shows that entitlement to maternity leave as defined above appears to be almost universally recognized and countries where women wage-earners do not have such an entitlement are rare. The entitlement may be expressly set out in national laws and elaborated or underpinned by collective agreements or arbitration awards applicable to the principle sectors, enterprises or different categories of women wage-earners. Alternatively, it may result from the application of provisions governing the period during which a woman may receive maternity benefits and the amount of such benefits (Algeria). It is worth noting that maternity leave is often covered by collective agreements. For example, in Singapore, 92 per cent of collective agreements in force as of 31 December 1996 included provisions relating to maternity leave.³

It should be emphasized that great progress has been made towards recognizing the need of women wage-earners to take time off from work at the time of a birth. In the United States, for example, where any entitlement to maternity leave once depended on works agreements and on legislation or regulations passed by individual States, a woman's entitlement to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for family or medical reasons, with a guarantee of reinstatement in the workplace, has been recognized at federal level since 1993 by the Family and Medical Leave Act. Maternity, together with health and family responsibilities, are expressly cited as possible reasons for leave. In Switzerland, maternity protection is guaranteed by the Constitution and governed by various uncoordinated statutes. A new draft law on maternity insurance was approved at the end of June 1997 and provides for the introduction of 14 weeks of paid maternity leave.⁴For the time being, this only amounts to a period during which the worker may not be employed together with a limited obligation to continue paying her wages during that period.

In many cases, legislation requires only that a medical certificate be produced as a condition for taking maternity leave, in accordance with Convention No. 103. This is the case, for example, in Bahrein, Belgium, Botswana, Colombia, Fiji, France, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Iraq, Italy, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Paraguay, Portugal, Solomon Islands and the Syrian Arab Republic.

Of course, the obligation to notify an employer does not imply that there are no other legal or practical formalities before a woman can take maternity leave. The purpose of such formalities is, among other things, to allow employers to make any necessary arrangements to cope with the worker's future absence from the workplace and to prevent or limit any disruption to the work of the enterprise by finding a replacement or by redistributing the worker's tasks among the remaining workforce. Notification procedures vary in terms of strictness, depending on whether notification is the responsibility of the worker herself or whether or not it involves the issuing of a medical certificate by a doctor or other competent medical authority. In Germany, for example, the employer must be notified of the pregnancy and the presumed date of confinement as soon as possible. In Australia, federal legislation on maternity leave and parental leave stipulates that the woman must inform her employer that she is pregnant and will be taking leave at least ten weeks before that leave and must formally apply for leave at least four weeks before that date, stating when the period of leave will start and finish. In Austria, a worker is required to inform her employer of her pregnancy and of the likely date of the birth as soon as she herself knows. She is also required to tell the employer of the date on which prenatal leave is to start four weeks before that date.

In Ireland and the United Kingdom, notification follows a fairly strict procedure. Where this is ignored, a woman may lose the protection of the courts in the event of a dispute. However, in Ireland a recent ruling (in the case Gray v. Smith) has recognized that, if the employer provides no guidance on the regulations governing maternity, a woman employee who fails to follow the established procedure will not be considered at fault. Similarly, failure to notify the employer does not necessarily have legal consequences in countries such as France, where a woman enjoys protection by the mere fact that she is pregnant and that the employer has learned of it regardless of the means. The same applies in Denmark, Italy and Greece. In Finland, in order to enjoy full protection, a woman is required to inform her employer only if she wishes to take leave more than 30 days before the presumed date of confinement.⁵

In some countries, the entitlement to leave is still subject to conditions or restrictions which are not envisaged by Convention No. 103. For example, leave entitlement may depend on the number of children already in the family, the frequency of births, or both, length of service or working hours. Other restrictions may apply where application of the regulations is limited to enterprises of a certain size, as we saw in the previous chapter.

The first category of such limits is found to apply in certain countries of Africa, the English-speaking Antilles and Asia, such as Bahamas, Barbados, Egypt, Grenada, Jamaica, Malaysia and Nepal. In Nepal, a woman employee's maternity leave entitlement is limited to two confinements. In Barbados, Grenada, Egypt, Jamaica and Zimbabwe, women are entitled to three such periods of maternity leave. In the Bahamas and in the United Republic of Tanzania, maternity leave may only be taken once every three years. Such limits, which contravene Convention No. 103, may be based on demographic arguments. Such arguments may also be invoked, conversely, by certain industrialized countries which have greater resources and developed social security systems, but also ageing populations and birth and fertility rates too low to allow social regeneration, to justify longer periods of maternity leave or other benefits for mothers with a certain number of children. This is the case in France, for example, for the third and subsequent children and in Poland for the second and subsequent children.

More commonly, although also limited, is the requirement for a minimum length of service with the same employer as a condition of maternity leave. This minimum length of service is three months in Switzerland, six months in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Syrian Arab Republic (in agriculture) and in Somalia (unless there has been a justified break from work), and six months during the year preceding the birth in Egypt and the Philippines. The period is 90 days during the six preceding months in Papua New Guinea (or 180 days during the preceding 12 months), 150 days in Belize, one year in Australia, Bahamas, Jamaica, Mauritius, Namibia, New Zealand and United Arab Emirates, 18 months in Grenada, and two years in Gambia and Zambia.

The trend towards extending protection to an ever growing number of women wage-earners, if not all of them, has continued in recent years. In the United Kingdom, legislation used to make it a condition for paid maternity leave with guaranteed reinstatement at work that a woman working for less than 16 hours per week should have worked for at least two years for her employer, and at least five years in the case of women working between eight and 16 hours per week. This effectively penalized a large proportion of women wage-earners, given that women account for a particularly large proportion of part-time workers. These conditions were abolished in 1994. Since then, any woman wage-earner in the United Kingdom has been entitled to maternity leave irrespective of her length of service with her employer. In New Zealand, although limits of this type still exist, the minimum length of service and the number of hours worked per week needed to qualify for maternity leave have been reduced from 18 months to one year and from 15 to ten hours respectively. Such limits also contravene the Part-Time Work Convention, 1994 (No. 175), adopted in 1994 by the International Labour Conference, which mentions maternity protection as one of the areas in which part-time workers should enjoy the same conditions as full-time workers in a comparable situation.

Convention No. 103 provides for a period of maternity leave of at least 12 weeks, six of which must be taken following the confinement. This effectively prohibits any resumption of work before a period of six weeks has elapsed following the birth of the child, although it allows each ratifying member State to decide how the remaining leave must or may be taken.

The countries investigated determine the length of maternity leave essentially in one of two ways: either by specifying its total length, or by specifying the prenatal and postnatal periods separately. With the first method, it is also possible to specify how all or part of the leave is allocated before and after the birth.

In many countries, a period of leave is compulsory, especially after a birth, and that period is often up to six weeks. However, both the way the total leave is allocated before and after the birth and the nature of that leave vary from one country to another. It would appear that national legislation and practice, which reflect developments in a society's concepts and policies with regard to the employment of women and the most insistent expectations of women themselves regarding their place at work and in society, are gradually giving greater weight to individual preferences and circumstances.

As will be seen in the chapter dealing with the financing of leave through social security or compulsory insurance schemes, women do not necessarily have any right to financial compensation. Nor does the length of the leave always correspond to the period during which cash benefits are payable by the social security or insurance scheme.

Table 1 shows the standard, minimum or basic maternity leave entitlements in 152 countries. It is based essentially on provisions generally applied in the private sector. In some countries, that period varies from sector to sector. It may be longer, or linked to greater security of employment, for example in the civil service (Egypt, Iceland, Jordan and Uruguay), or to better financial benefits under particular schemes, or to additional guarantees regarding improved conditions of employment achieved through collective bargaining or employment contracts. Variations also occur according to occupation and occupational category. To simplify analysis and comparison, the table groups available data by length of leave, differentiating between cases where leave is less than the standard 12 weeks specified by Convention No. 103, cases where that standard has been achieved and cases where it is exceeded.

It should be emphasized that neither the practical implementation of the leave arrangements nor the nature of the leave (minimum or compulsory) are neutral factors. They can profoundly affect a woman's actual leave entitlement. There is no real comparison between cases where maternity leave is optional, as it is in the United States, cases where the total leave entitlement corresponds to a minimum level, and cases where part of the leave or indeed all of it is compulsory (Panama). With this proviso, it can be seen from table 1 that only in 31 countries, i.e. one country in five, is the statutory leave entitlement less than 12 weeks. In more than half the countries (119) the statutory entitlement is greater than that period and in 62 countries, i.e. 41 per cent of the total, it is at least 14 weeks, the period specified by the Maternity Protection Recommendation, 1952 (No. 95), (which also corresponds to the minimum leave entitlement stipulated by the European Union Directive mentioned earlier).

It should also be noted that in practice, collective bargaining, whose importance has already been noted, can often increase the leave entitlement. This is the case in Mexico, for example, where the statutory leave entitlement is 12 weeks (84 days). In two banks (Banco Inverlat and Banco Union SA) and in the Northern Power and Electricity Company, collective agreements give female employees a leave entitlement of 90 days and 110 days respectively. In Spain, under the terms of an agreement covering the 12,000 teaching staff in private schools in the Basque region, women are entitled to 17 weeks maternity leave, while under another agreement covering the 18,000 public school teachers in the same region women have 18 weeks leave, these periods being respectively one week and two weeks longer than the statutory entitlement. In Kenya, women employed in the construction industry are entitled to 12 weeks maternity leave, which is almost one month more than the statutory entitlement.⁶ In the United Kingdom, an inquiry in 1995 into provisions relating to maternity based on 240 different establishments showed that 85 per cent of these establishments had maternity leave arrangements more generous than the statutory provisions.⁷ In Switzerland, the length of maternity leave specified in collective agreements varies according to length of service, in accordance with the relevant legislation, and is on average 7.1 weeks during the first year of service, 9.6 weeks during the second, 10.7 during the third and fourth years, 14.6 during the fifth to ninth years and so on.8 By contrast, the length of paid maternity leave is legally fixed at three weeks during the first year of service and to "a longer period determined in an equitable manner" thereafter.⁹

The trend towards extending maternity leave noted in 1965 by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations¹⁰ and in 1982 by the Governing Body¹¹ has continued. For example, in 1995 the statutory entitlement was increased from 14 to 15 weeks in Belgium and from 90 days to 14 weeks in Portugal. In Mozambique, the Labour Advisory Board recently discussed the possibility of increasing the current maternity leave allowance of 60 days to 90 days. Policies aimed at improving maternity protection in various countries over the past 15 years have typically sought to increase maternity leave entitlements, although the trend seems unlikely to continue except for specific situations and cases where an increase over the basic or minimum maternity leave can be justified.¹²For this there are two major interrelated reasons.

The first follows from the aim, recognized at both international and national levels, of achieving real equality between men and women in the workplace and in society. This is all the more important given the proportion of the active working population in many countries made up of women of child-bearing age, particularly -- although not exclusively -- in the industrialized countries. That proportion has grown constantly during recent decades. In France, more than half of all births recorded in 1977 were to women wage-earners (380,000 out of 750,000).¹³ In Switzerland, it is estimated that of about 81,000 recorded births each year, 54,000 are to mothers in paid employment.¹⁴ Between 1985 and 1993, the employment of women with children under ten years of age increased more rapidly than the employment of women in general in all the countries of the European Union except Denmark.¹⁵ These few figures also explain why business and political leaders concerned by the problem of an ageing population are increasingly looking at ways of reconciling work and the family responsibilities associated with motherhood.¹⁶ They highlight the widely acknowledged need for measures which recognize the biological role of women in conceiving and giving birth to children to prevent that role from becoming a source of discrimination against them in matters of employment. Nevertheless, that unalterable biological difference between men and women, which is the basis of maternity leave and the associated employment protection measures for pregnant workers and those who have just had a child, must not be used to justify excessively protective measures which might act against women's interests. The danger of this happening is greater if the period of maternity leave is very long and thus compounds the organizational problems created by a worker's absence, particularly in small enterprises where many women wage-earners are employed. The biological role of women in procreation must be protected, but we must steer clear of overprotection with its potentially adverse consequences. For this reason, the constraints associated with that biological role, which affects only a limited period of a woman's working life, should be differentiated from the tasks of raising and caring for children, which can be shared by men and women¹⁷ and for which parental leave, discussed in a later chapter, has been instituted.

The second reason is connected with the availability of child-care facilities. Maternity leave should not be a substitute for such services. Care must be taken not to compensate for a lack of child-care facilities by increasing maternity leave beyond reasonable limits to the detriment of a woman's chances of resuming an active life after a period of maternity leave and playing an effective part in an enterprise and in the economy generally.

The proportions of the leave taken before and after the birth and their respective minimum or compulsory lengths determine both the actual leave period, in particular in the event of a discrepancy between the expected and actual dates of confinement, and the freedom available to a woman in arranging her maternity leave. Table 2 draws together the general statutory provisions applicable in various countries. The length of the prenatal portion of leave is established with reference to the presumed date of confinement. Normally, if confinement starts earlier than expected and legislation specifies the minimum total maternity leave allowance, the postnatal portion of the leave is extended by a period equivalent to the interval elapsing between the expected and actual dates of confinement.

As can be seen from table 2, a compulsory period of postnatal leave is stipulated by legislation in many countries, in accordance with Convention No. 103. The length of this leave is 6 weeks in Australia (Victoria), Bangladesh, Belize, Botswana, Burundi, Canada (Alberta and British Columbia), Central African Republic, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji (public officials), France, Haiti, Honduras, Hun-gary, India, Jordan, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Spain, United Republic of Tanzania, Togo, Turkey and Uruguay. The compulsory period of postnatal leave is more than six weeks in some countries where the total maternity leave period exceeds (sometimes substantially) 12 weeks. This is the case in Cyprus (seven weeks); Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Chad, Gabon, Germany, Guinea, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Panama, and South Africa (eight weeks); and Viet Nam (two months). In Switzerland, the prohibition of employment, which applies only to the postnatal period, is also eight weeks. The period is ten weeks in Ecuador, 12 weeks in Chile and three months in Costa Rica. On the other hand, the compulsory period of postnatal leave in some countries is less than six weeks: two weeks in Denmark and the United Kingdom, four weeks in Bahamas, Mali, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Uganda, and 30 days in Guinea-Bissau, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Sao Tome and Principe.

A period of prenatal leave is also compulsory in certain countries. The purpose of this is to allow a woman to rest and avoid working until the last minute, even if her own preference is for postnatal leave as a way of maximizing her period of rest after the birth. The statutory length of such leave varies from one country to another: one week in Belgium and Fiji, two weeks in Cyprus, Ecuador, France, Madagascar, Mauritania, Seychelles and Zimbabwe, three weeks in Mali, four weeks in Brazil, Honduras, Senegal, Slovenia and South Africa, one month in Costa Rica, six weeks in Australia (public servants in Western Australia and South Australia), Chile, Dominican Republic, Germany, Guinea, Haiti, Panama, Turkey and Venezuela. The statutory prenatal leave may be increased by negotiations between the social partners. For example, in Denmark in the public sector, women can take leave from eight weeks before the confinement, rather than the statutory four weeks.¹⁸

Two things are clear from these examples. One is that compulsory prenatal leave is far less common than compulsory postnatal leave. The second is that, where there is an entitlement to prenatal leave, its length is limited and in any event substantially less than that of compulsory postnatal leave. This corresponds to what women themselves expect but does not necessarily address the concerns of medical experts to prevent premature births ¹⁹ which can cause serious handicaps and thus create a heavy financial burden for the mother and family, for health care schemes and for society as a whole. The question is thus how to satisfy medical requirements without ignoring women's own wishes and preferences which are increasingly reflected in national legislation and practice allowing women to choose, at least within certain limits, how to arrange their prenatal and postnatal leave. Thus in Peru, the possibility of carrying over all or part of the prenatal leave and using it after the confinement is subject to two conditions: the worker must notify her employer of her intention and must provide a medical certificate stating that she is in a fit condition to do so. Along the same general lines but in a different way, the law governing maternity in New Zealand establishes the standard maximum prenatal leave of six weeks and leaves it to the employee and the employer together to decide when the leave period should begin, although the employer has the right to decide that the leave should start more than six weeks before the expected date of confinement if the woman is unable to do her work without risk to herself or others. Directive 92/85/EEC does no more than stipulate a compulsory leave period of two weeks which may be allocated before and/or after confinement, giving each country considerable freedom to determine the way the leave is allocated. Specifying a minimum period of leave also helps to ensure that various pressures relating to the woman's financial situation, her position in the company or the state of the enterprise itself do not adversely affect her health.

Under the terms of Convention No. 103, maternity leave must be extended in either of two cases: when confinement begins after the expected date, in which case the prenatal portion of the leave must be extended up until the actual date of confinement without any reduction in the compulsory postnatal leave; and in the event of illness arising as a result of the pregnancy or confinement, the maximum length of the leave then being determined by the competent authority.

Specific provisions for these two types of extension of maternity leave exist in a number of countries. The first type of extension is found in Angola, Barbados, Belgium, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, Cuba, Ethiopia, Germany, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Mali, Malta, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Romania, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Swaziland, Venezuela and Zimbabwe. The length of the extension depends on the period elapsing between the presumed and actual (delayed) dates of confinement. On the other hand, extension of leave for reasons of illness is more common (see table 3). The length of such an extension varies from two weeks (most commonly) to a possible three months or even longer and is not necessarily specified or limited, given the difficulty of predicting the nature of possible complications and the period of rest required. The distinction between leave in the event of illness resulting from pregnancy or confinement and sick leave also appears to be blurred. In a number of countries (Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Eritrea, Malta, Philippines, Sudan and Zambia), maternity leave is extended as sick leave.

Table 3 also shows the information available on extensions of maternity leave provided for by the national legislation of various countries under other circumstances, for example in cases of multiple births. Provision is sometimes made for other types of extension, for example if the mother is still nursing, if the working conditions are prejudicial to the health of the mother or child (if, for example, the mother cannot be transferred to other duties compatible with her condition), or if the child is ill (six months in Argentina if the child is afflicted with Down's syndrome). In New Zealand, in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, special leave of ten days may be taken by the expectant mother during the period before the birth and the start of actual maternity leave.

In several countries, legislation includes provisions for dealing with particular problems and situations, such as the hospitalization or death of a newborn baby or its mother following the birth.

In the following countries, maternity leave can be interrupted or deferred, allowing the mother to use it when the child leaves hospital: Belgium (if the child has been in hospital for more than eight weeks after its birth), Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Israel, Poland, Portugal and Sao Tome and Principe. In addition, special provisions sometimes apply if the child dies after birth. This is the case in Angola, where maternity leave is terminated by the death of a newborn baby before the normal end of the leave period and the worker is required to resume work six days after the death if it occurs after the compulsory postnatal leave period of 45 days. Maternity leave may also be reduced if the child is stillborn or dies: this is the case in Bulgaria, Grenada (if the death occurs during the month following the birth), Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Israel (if the woman agrees) and Portugal.

An employed father may take any unused maternity leave if the mother is hospitalized or dies following childbirth, as in Belgium, Bulgaria, Chile, Croatia, France, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Russian Federation, Slovenia and Spain. In Portugal, a father may use the maternity leave, except for the mandatory two weeks of postnatal leave, if both parents agree.

The preceding analysis confirms the importance of maternity leave. Seen as the most essential means of safeguarding the health of the mother, unborn child and newborn baby, it remains the key element in the protection of women who continue to work during pregnancy. This role is universally acknowledged and firmly established as can be seen from the fact that all the countries examined here have adopted statutory provisions for maternity leave, even those countries where other types of leave and conditions of employment are normally negotiated by the social partners. The partners still have a very important part to play in increasing maternity leave entitlement, especially where it is relatively short, and even more in increasing women's disposable income during maternity leave.

Over the years, major changes have taken place in many countries reflecting changes in the role and image of women at work and in society and in women's own expectations. Whatever reservations may have been expressed during the debates which have shaken up the world of employment over the past two decades on ways of guaranteeing real equality of opportunity and treatment for men and women and protective measures applicable exclusively to women, the role of maternity leave has become at once clearer and more complex.

What has become clearer is the importance of maternity leave in enabling women to reconcile their unique biological role and their wage-earning activity. After all, how, given that unique role, could one speak of equality between men and women without guaranteeing their right to interrupt their paid work for the birth of a child and return to work afterwards?

The greater complexity becomes apparent from the measures adopted to ensure that family responsibilities, as opposed to the physiological demands associated with the birth or adoption of a child, are not borne exclusively by women or at least are made less onerous than at present. The complexity is also evident from the links between these measures. That is why maternity leave, or the portion of parental leave provided for in various countries following the birth and reserved in some cases for the mother, should not exceed certain limits. This requires social infrastructures in the form of child-care facilities while parents are at work. Nevertheless, the complexity of the different provisions which address these concerns is sometimes more apparent than real and another factor is gradually becoming clearer, namely, greater flexibility based on the needs and preferences both of the women wage-earners and employers.

²Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breast-feeding, in Official Journal of the European Communities, (Brussels, 28 November 1992), Vol. 35, No. L348, pp. 1-7. Article 2 of the Directive defines the pregnant worker as "a pregnant worker who informs her employer of her condition, in accordance with national legislation and/or national practice".

⁴Office fédéral des assurances sociales (OFAS): Assurance maternité: Message, Documents relating to the decision of the Conseil fédéral of 25 June 1997 (30 June 1997).

⁵S. Prechal and L. Senden: Implementation of Directive 92/85 (Pregnant workers), Special Report 1995 of the Network of Experts on the Implementation of the Equality Directives, document No. V/1717/96-EN (Brussels, European Commission, October 1996).

⁶Regulation of Wages (Building and Construction Industry) Order 1994, Legal Notice No. 70, dated 1 March 1994 in: Kenya Gazette, No. 11, Supplement, 4 March 1994, pp. 506-521.

⁷"Maternity arrangements '95: Part 1", in Equal Opportunities Review (London, September/October 1995).

⁸Up to 28.5 weeks after 20 years of service, which obviously reduces the scope in practice. OFAS, op. cit.

¹⁰ILO: "Maternity Protection", in the Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report III (Part IV), International Labour Conference, 49th Session (Geneva, 1965), pp. 179-289.

12 The limit of 16 weeks reached or exceeded in 27 of the 152 countries examined appears to be an objective that is hard to surpass.

¹³P. Cabanes: Maternité et travail, Report submitted to the Minister of Labour and Participation and to the Secretary of State for Women's Employment (Paris, April 1979).

¹⁵P. Moss: Labour Market Trends: Parental employment in the European Union, 1985-1993 (London, December 1996).

¹⁶See: Leave arrangements for workers with children: A review of leave arrangements in the Member States of the European Union and Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden, document No. V/773/94-EN (Brussels, January 1994).

¹⁷C. Paoli: "Women workers and maternity: Some examples from Western Europe", in International Labour Review (Geneva, ILO), Vol. 121, No. 1, 1982, pp. 1-16.

¹⁹In France, the report on "Maternité et travail" of 1979, already cited, recommended an extension of prenatal leave.

A guarantee for pregnant women and young mothers that they will not lose their job as a result of being pregnant, absent on maternity leave or because they have just had a child, is an essential element in maternity protection. Such a guarantee is an integral part of their entitlement to paid maternity leave. It is also an essential means of preventing maternity from becoming a source of discrimination against women in matters of employment. For this we need to ensure that the absence of the woman on maternity leave should have no adverse effects on her resumption and continuation of work at the end of her period of leave or on her entitlements under the employment contract, in particular those linked to seniority within the company (such as paid annual leave) or to length of service (such as retirement benefits).

Convention No. 103, like Convention No. 3 before it, absolutely prohibits dismissal of a worker during maternity leave or during any extension of such leave that may be necessitated by illness resulting from pregnancy or confinement.¹ The protection this provides is considerable, since it prohibits dismissal even under exceptional circumstances.²At the same time, the protection is limited, since it only covers the period during which the woman is on maternity leave, i.e. twelve weeks according to these Conventions, and during any extension of that leave. On the other hand, the Maternity Protect


Length	Country

Less than 12 weeks	Tunisia (30 days); Lebanon, Qatar (40 days); Papua New Guinea (6 weeks*); Bahrein, United Arab Emirates (45 days); Egypt, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (50 days); Nepal (52 days); Bahamas, Singapore, Sudan, Switzerland, Uganda (8 weeks); Bolivia, Eritrea, Guinea-Bissau, Iceland, Iraq, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mozambique, Philippines, Yemen (60 days or two months); Honduras, Jordan, Kuwait, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia (70 days or ten weeks); Syrian Arab Republic (75 days).
12 weeks	Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Burundi, Colombia, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Israel, Jamaica, Lesotho, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, United Republic of Tanzania, Turkey, United States, Uruguay, Zambia.
13 weeks	Afghanistan, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Cambodia, Chad, China, Ethiopia, Grenada, Guyana, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Peru, Saint Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, Zimbabwe.
14 weeks	Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Gabon, Germany, Guinea, Ireland, Japan, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, New Zealand, Panama, Portugal, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, Sweden, Togo, United Kingdom.
15 weeks	Mongolia (101 days); Belgium, Congo, Finland, Slovenia.
16 weeks	Austria, Cyprus, Costa Rica, France, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain.
17 weeks	or moreBrazil, Bulgaria, Canada (17 weeks); Viet Nam (4-7 months); Azerbaijan, Belarus, Chile, Cuba, Denmark, Estonia, Ukraine, Venezuela (18 weeks); Russian Federation (20 weeks); Italy (5 months); Hungary (24 weeks); Croatia (6 months and 4 weeks); Czech Republic (28 weeks); Norway (38-48 weeks); Australia (52 weeks).
* Plus prenatal leave, where required.
Sources: National legislation, information provided to the ILO in 1997 in reply to a request for information; and Conditions of work digest: Maternity and work , Vol. 13, 1994


Length	Country

Mandatory prenatal leave:
1 month or less	Belgium, Fiji (7 days); Cyprus, Ecuador, France, Madagascar, Mauritania, Seychelles, Zimbabwe (2 weeks); Mali (3 weeks); Brazil, Croatia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Senegal, Slovenia, South Africa (4 weeks); Costa Rica (1 month).
6 weeks or more	Australia,1 Chile, Dominican Republic, Germany, Guinea, Haiti, Panama, Turkey, Venezuela (6 weeks); Argentina (45 days); Austria (8 weeks); Italy (2 months).
Mandatory postnatal leave:
Less than 6 weeks	Denmark, United Kingdom (2 weeks); Mali, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Uganda (4 weeks); Guinea-Bissau, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Sao Tome and Principe (30 days); Egypt, Syrian Arab Republic (40 days).
6 weeks	Australia, 2 Bangladesh, Belize, Botswana, Burundi, Canada,3 Central African Republic, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji,4 France, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Jordan, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Spain, United Republic of Tanzania, Togo, Turkey, Uruguay.
6 weeks or more	Angola, Argentina, Peru (45 days); Cyprus (7 weeks); Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Chad, Gabon, Germany, Guinea, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Panama, South Africa, Switzerland (8 weeks); Portugal, Viet Nam (2 months); Ecuador (10 weeks); Chile, Venezuela (12 weeks); Costa Rica, Italy (3 months); Croatia (6 months).
¹For federal public servants and in the states of South Australia and Western Australia. ²In the state of Victoria. ³In the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. ⁴For public servants


Complications or illness:
Less than 1 month	Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Botswana (further extension possible), Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Estonia, Gabon, Ghana, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Niger, Philippines, Russian Federation, Senegal, Togo, Tunisia, Ukraine.
1 to 3 months	Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, Cameroon, Costa Rica, Fiji, France, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Israel, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malta, Papua New Guinea, Portugal, Swaziland, Thailand (unpaid), Uganda (unpaid), United Kingdom.
More than 3 months	Ecuador (unpaid), Iraq, Jamaica (further 3 weeks possible), Kuwait (unpaid), Netherlands, Syrian Arab Republic (including maternity leave), United Arab Emirates (unpaid).
As long as necessary	Chile, El Salvador, Honduras (unpaid), Mexico, Solomon Islands, Venezuela.
Unspecified period	Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Dominican Republic (unpaid), Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Italy, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Seychelles, Sudan, Zambia, Zimbabwe (unpaid).
Multiple births:
Less than 1 month	Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Belarus, China, Estonia, Georgia, Ghana, Guinea, Islamic Republic of Iran, Israel, Norway,* Spain, Ukraine, Yemen.
1 to 2 months	Armenia, Austria, Cuba, Germany, Iceland,* Japan, Luxembourg, Mongolia, Russian Federation, Viet Nam.*
More than 2 months	Czech Republic, Finland,* France, Iraq, Poland, Sweden.*
* Per additional child.