Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No [2014] NZERA Auckland 300
Hearing date 3 Jul 2014
Determination date 14 July 2014
Member J Crichton
Representation R Samuels ; D Thomas (in person)
Location Auckland
Parties Richardson v Thomas
Summary PARENTAL LEAVE - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent's breach of Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 (PLEPA") - Refusal to keep applicant's position open - Whether applicant held key position - Whether temporary replacement not reasonably practicable - Litigation support assistant"
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND -;PARENTAL LEAVE - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: Proper claim was for breach of PLEPA rather than personal grievance. Proper for Authority to consider applicant's claim as if made under PLEPA rather than personal grievance. Persons with more than elementary skills employed in small enterprises may well occupy key positions. Applicant's role in small cell within slightly larger but still small law firm key position by virtue of fact applicant effectively sole assistant for two busy practitioners. Temporary replacement not reasonably practicable because of nature of position and because of respondent's expectations of position. No breach of PLEPA.
Result Application dismissed ; Costs to lie where they fall
Main Category Parental Leave
Statutes ERA;ERA s122;Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987;Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s1A;Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s41;Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s56(4);Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s68;Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s68(6)
Cases Cited Denley v Service Workers Union of Aotearoa (Inc) [1994] 1 ERNZ 863;New Zealand Bank Officers' Industrial Union of Workers v ANZ Banking Group (New Zealand) Ltd [1983] ACJ 803
Number of Pages 10
PDF File Link: 2014_NZERA_Auckland_300.pdf [pdf 231 KB]