| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 98/10 |
| Determination date | 28 April 2010 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | L Radich ; A Leulu |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Le Compte v Department of Labour |
| Summary | PARENTAL LEAVE - Applicant sought review of respondent’s decision no longer eligible for paid parental leave (“PPL”) - Applicant applied for PPL - Before Inland Revenue Department (“IRD”) received application, but after date applicant had stated PPL to begin, applicant returned to work for half day as relief teacher - After had returned to work for half day applicant received acknowledgement letter from IRD which included statement entitlement would end if returned to work while on PPL - Applicant informed IRD had worked for half day while on PPL - IRD referred matter to respondent who found applicant no longer eligible for PPL as had returned to work - Parties accepted applicant eligible for PPL at time applied - Found as major piece of social legislation Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 (“PLEPA”) to be given liberal interpretation - Found if respondent’s view correct, applicant would have returned to work during PPL for purposes of PLEPA even though application received after that date - Found meant if applied PLEPA, applicant not entitled to PPL because did not apply before returning to work - Found application should have been declined - Found if applicant did not validly apply before returning to work, difficult to see how could properly be regarded as entitled to PPL from date stated on application so as to have returned to work early on half day worked - Found applicant’s actions not deliberate return to work so as to disentitle eligibility to PPL - Found as had not received IRD acknowledgement letter did not accept applicant knew or ought to have known effect of doing half day’s work - Found had applicant known would not have agreed to work - Application for review granted - Respondent’s decision modified - Applicant to be paid PPL for 14 week period, less one day, from date after day returned to work unless returned to work during that time - COSTS - Found respondent’s administrative action in keeping with published information about which it reasonably felt had no discretion - Found applicant would benefit from review so no justification for respondent to contribute to costs - Costs to lie where they fall - Teacher |
| Result | Application granted ; Orders accordingly ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Main Category | Parental Leave |
| Statutes | Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987;Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s71I;Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s71I(1);Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s71I(2)(a);Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s71K;Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s71K(1);Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s71L;Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s71L(1);Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s71U(1) |
| Cases Cited | Denley v Service Workers Union of Aotearoa (Inc) [1994] 1 ERNZ 863;Oliver v Department of Labour unreported, G J Wood, 15 Jan 2009, WA 5/09 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 98_10.pdf [pdf 155 KB] |