On Mon, 11/3/14, Jose Colaco <[email protected]> wrote: You, Mayabhushan, Devika Sequeira, the ???? employee and the Herald are welcome to enlighten us with the facts of this case:
1: What is the exact meaning of the term "the last stage of pregnancy"? 2: Was the Maternal Benefits Act (1961) violated? 3: Was legal opinion sought? Was the Herald taken to court for violation of any statute? 4: If the DENIAL is not within 6 weeks of EDD (expected date of delivery), was there a note from the young lady's obstetrician? REPEAT: IF the young lady was legally eligible for maternity leave and was denied that leave, The Herald better find a good lawyer and keep some funds in escrow. The ones who made the decision also better look for another job (if somebody will hire them) ------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Colaco, Thanks for continuing to keep this in the public eye. Since I do not own any shares of the Herald, it does not matter too much to me how adversely the Harold gets affected by this case. Hopefully, everyone concerned with the media will be observing and making their own conclusions on how well those managing the paper, treat their employees. Also, of importance, is the change that may happen to other companies that operate in a similiar maner. The Herald has been receiving copies of these posts/emails. I have made my statement. You have made yours. The two journalist have made theirs. What is missing? Mervyn
