Green Party slams 'unjust and unreasonable' parental leave payment rejection
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) has upheld a decision by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) to deny parental leave payments to a mother who sought compensation after her child's premature birth.
The case arose after LEH, a New Zealand woman, applied for parental leave payments following the premature birth of her child on July 3, 2024, months ahead of the expected delivery date of October 18, 2024.
LEH had worked for two different employers during the relevant period but had only returned to work in May 2024 after taking medical advice to delay her return. She subsequently resigned from her role on July 14, 2024, to care for her premature baby.
In her application for parental leave payments, LEH argued that her eligibility should be assessed using the actual birth date, rather than the expected delivery date, as her child's premature arrival meant that the circumstances surrounding her claim were unique.
LEH contended that by calculating her eligibility from the birth date, she had worked more than 26 weeks during the 52 weeks preceding the birth, thus meeting the criteria for paid parental leave (PPL).
MBIE, however, determined that LEH did not qualify for paid parental leave under the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 (PLEPA).
According to the legislation, applicants are required to have worked at least 26 of the 52 weeks leading up to the expected delivery date.
In LEH's case, this meant that her eligibility was assessed based on the period between October 18, 2023, and October 18, 2024, during which she worked 13.5 weeks. As this fell short of the 26-week requirement, MBIE declined her application for parental leave payments.
In her appeal to the ERA, LEH argued that the parental leave payment threshold test should be applied based on the actual birth date.
She suggested that, had the test been based on the date her child was born, she would have met the necessary criteria, as she had worked 29 weeks between July 3, 2023, and July 3, 2024.
However, the ERA ultimately sided with MBIE, affirming that the law was clear in its definition of eligibility.
The ruling emphasised that the parental leave entitlement threshold test was intended to be applied based on the expected date of delivery.
The ERA also took into account the fact that LEH had received guidance from the Inland Revenue Department's eligibility calculator, which she believed had indicated her eligibility.
However, the ERA determined that the online tool was only for general information and that each application needed to be evaluated based on the specific circumstances.
"I understand LEH's frustration that the law has not allowed for payment to be approved in her specific circumstances when the circumstances of her child's birth were outside her control," the ERA ruled.
"Despite this, for the reasons outlined above, I accept that MBIE made the correct assessment to decline LEH's application for parental leave payments in accordance with legislation. LEH's application is therefore declined."
The case highlights the need to review the legislation around access to PPL, according to Green Party spokesperson for Workplace Relations and Safety spokesperson Teanau Tuiono.
"Paid parental leave is so important for ensuring tamariki have the best possible start in life, for the wellbeing of both pepī and whānau. For parents to miss out on PPL over technicalities like this is simply unjust and unreasonable," Tuiono said on a Facebook post.
"Such glaring inequities highlight that the law around access to PPL should be looked at again. The Greens would extend paid parental leave and ensure broad eligibility for it."
