ERA satisfied that employment relationship existed even if she never got to carry out work for one employer
A woman who never got to carry out work for her employer is still entitled to receive parental leave payment (PLP), according to a recent ruling from the Employment Relations Authority (ERA).
The ruling dealt with the case of Shannen Rogers, who came to the ERA appealing the decision of the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) to decline her entitlement to a PLP.
Under the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987, an employee is entitled to PLP if they are the primary carer of the child and if they had been employed for an average of 10 hours a week for any 26 of the 52 weeks just before the due date of the baby.
"The employment for this test can be with more than one employer and doesn't have to be continuous employment," a summary from Employment New Zealand said.
'Incorrect' calculation
In Rogers' case, the MBIE accepted that she is the primary carer of her child born in October 2023.
But it declined her request for PLP claiming that she was only worked 25 weeks and was short by one week from the requirement.
Rogers, however, claimed that the MBIE's calculation was "incorrect" as it ignored an employment contract between her and an employer between February and March 2023.
She presented evidence to the ERA showing that she accepted an employment offer from the company, but her start date was deferred on several occasions due to Cyclone Gabrielle.
Eventually, she was informed that the role she was offered was no longer available.
The MBIE's take on the situation is that Rogers "did not actually commence work" with the said employer, and therefore it should not count for the second PLP requirement.
ERA decision
But the ERA was satisfied that an employment relationship existed between Rogers and her employer between February 15 and March 7, even if she didn't carry out work for the company.
"I consider that it is appropriate to take the period of time that Ms Rogers was ready, willing and able to perform work for the company into account in determining her eligibility for a PLP," the ERA said in its ruling.
"The evidence before me shows that if this period of time is included, then Ms. Rogers meets the requirement to have been employed for an average of 10 hours per week in 26 of the 52 weeks immediately preceding her estimated date of delivery."
The ERA then ordered the MBIE to arrange PLP to Rogers and pay her $71.55 for the Authority's filing fee.
If the MBIE still considers that Rogers is not entitled the PLP, the ERA ordered it to lodge and serve further evidence.
"If MBIE elects to present further evidence, then a case management conference will need to be organised to determine the next steps for this matter," the ERA said.
