| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 226 |
| Determination date | 26 May 2011 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | C Grant (in person) ; S Blick |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Grant v Department of Labour |
| Summary | PARENTAL LEAVE – Applicant sought review of respondent’s decision not eligible for paid parental leave (“PPL”) – Applicant employed under series of fixed term contracts – Applicant unable to complete school year due to pregnancy – Employer entered incorrect date on PPL application form – Employer entered end of term as PPL commencement date but indicated intended to employ applicant for following term – Reason for fixed term was position dependent on school role – Authority found applicant only eligible for PPL if employee – Found intention to employ applicant for following term depended on school role and funding allocation – Following PPL, applicant employed on further fixed term agreement – Found fixed term agreements leading up to PPL not in writing – Applicant claimed employment continuous for two terms leading up to PPL – Found applicant, at expected date of delivery, in continuous employment – Found on basis of ongoing expectation of employment, applicant was employee and eligible for PPL – Respondent claimed no irregularity affecting applicant’s application – Found date entered by employer on application form not correct – Found incorrect date resulted in irregularity for which Authority could grant relief – Teacher |
| Result | Application granted ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Parental Leave |
| Statutes | ERA s66(4);ERA s66(5);ERA s66(6);Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s7;Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s68(5);Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s71ZB |
| Cases Cited | ASTE v Central Institute of Technology [1991] 2 ERNZ 464 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_226.pdf [pdf 27 KB] |