The HSE recommends that employees who are still breastfeeding when they return after maternity leave, should be allowed regular rest periods and a private area where they can express milk.  My question is, can the employer stipulate that these breaks have to be unpaid, or would that amount to discrimination?

This is the first question I've ever come across on this topic and there is nothing to cover it in legislation i.e. unlike paid time off for antenatal appointments.  Potentially, it could be covered under discrimination, as obviously, it would only affect the one sex, and it follows HSE recommendations i.e. good practice. 

I would presume that the question in return would be how long is required for the rest period etc.; therefore, I would suggest that a reasonable employer would allow rest periods to be paid, as long as the employee does not abuse it by taking excessive time.

Just a thought...creating a great working environment includes a bucket load of trust. If you take money away from an employee because she has a physical and caring need to express milk, what do you think the outcome will be? Will she be a motivated, empowered and supportive employee? I doubt it. Do you take money from other employees who have physical needs like going to the loo? Or smoke? Or because they need to have dyalisis? 

I would also suggest that by providing this support to your mothers (and let's be honest it will only be for a short period of time whilst baby needs it), you will create loyalty and an employee that will give back in many ways. Women do, we are more likely to be loyal (statistically proven). The impact of not doing it is an employee that will do what is required; not a penny more, not a penny less, or worst case, will just leave. Also, breastfeeding is best for the child and provides all sorts of health benefits when older. If you don't provide the support now, what will mum do when her child is sick when it is older? Your employee will take time out too - so your sickness absence may increase. Try not to be short-sighted and discriminate about wellbeing, you wouldn't take money away from employees for health needs, so try not to do it for this and you will gain in the end. A woman who wants to do the best for her child -  sounds like she has good values already, so why would you penalise her for that by taking money away from her because she takes 10 minutes to express milk 3 or 4 times in a day? I would focus my time on the employee who takes time out for something that is not adding value to either them or the future of the business. A motivated employee that is supported is up to 38% more productive; sounds to me like she would make up for the time to express milk in no time.

An employer of choice is one where choice exists - if that employee feels that she has no choice to care for her child in the way she chooses to she will just leave. Can you afford to lose talent? I think not. It is about give and take and I guarantee that providing choice has a positive impact. Also, quiet areas can also be used for many more things - like prayer rooms, me-time rooms and concentration rooms for quiet work. Look at ways you can create benefit from it and that way you will reduce the negative responses, increase productivity and reduce sickness absence - not to mention attrition.

Good Luck

Lynne Copp, MD, The Worklife Company

Unfortunately, having raised many of these points myself, the more than reasonable argument above has held little sway so far.  Hopefully the knowledge that non payment is potentially discriminatory may have greater effect!