The proposed legislation seeks to provide victims with better workplace protection but New Zealand’s Law Society says there are a number of faults.
Proposed legislation which would provide victims of domestic violence with greater workplace protection may have hit a stumbling block after the New Zealand Law Society pointed out a number of potential problems.
“As currently drafted, the bill is likely to give rise to unintended consequences, including the risk of intrusion into individuals’ privacy,” said Law Society spokesperson Victoria Casey QC.
If passed, the Domestic Violence – Victim’s Protection Bill would grant impacted employees the right to paid time off as well as the right to request flexible working.
However, employers won’t be obligated to make any accommodations unless the employee produces a “domestic violence document” as proof – this could include a police report, a record of a police caution, criminal proceedings, a conviction relating to domestic violence, court orders, a medical practitioner report or a report from a domestic violence support organisation.
“In the context of domestic violence, privacy and consent to disclosure are very important and raise sensitive and complex questions,” the society said in a statement. “The disclosure of highly sensitive personal information to an employer may pose a significant barrier for victims seeking help.”
The bill also puts domestic violence victims in the unique position of having to provide reasons and prove grounds to support their application for flexible working.
“As currently drafted, the bill makes it more difficult for workers citing domestic violence to obtain flexible working arrangements than other workers who invoke the existing provisions of the Act,” Law Society spokesperson Maria Dew told the committee.
“The bill also subjects domestic violence victims to more onerous requirements in other respects, and the Law Society recommends the select committee consider whether the flexible working needs of these workers can be better met by the existing Employment Relations Act provisions.”
Finally, Casey also warned the current draft could leave employers uncertain about how they’re should best respond to applications for workplace accommodations.
“It is also important that obligations on employers are clear and practicable,” she said. “The bill does not provide sufficient guidance on how to balance the privacy and best interests of victims with employers’ legal obligations to provide protective measures in the workplace.”
Recent stories:
