Parental Leave Case Law Example
The Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) case of Elizabeth O’Reilly v Avista CLG was brought under Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998 (“the Act”) in respect of the Complainant’s persistent issues with her employer in respect of her applications for parental leave. The Adjudicator confirmed that parental leave is an entitlement and that the Act only requires notice and not an application for approval unless an employee is applying for a period of parental leave that is shorter than a block of six weeks. On that basis, the Adjudicator directed the Respondent to amend its Parental Leave Policy to remove any requirement for approval for parental leave unless requested for a period of less than six weeks. She also ordered that the Respondent confirm the Complainant’s parental leave applications for 2024 and 2025 no later than 1st June 2023.
Facts: The Complainant was employed as a social care worker by the Respondent from October 2002. The Respondent provides housing support for people with intellectual disabilities and complex needs. Having had her first child in 2011, in 2014 the Complainant applied for parental leave which she intended to take in 2015. The Respondent agreed to providing this by reducing her hours over a period of 62 weeks. However, the Complainant made a number of further applications for parental leave, all of which were refused or altered by the Respondent. The leave requests were:
- In 2017, she applied for one 7-week leave block to be taken in the summer
- In 2018, she applied for one 7-week leave block to be taken that summer
Both of these requests were refused on the basis that the Respondent would be required to get agency workers to fill in for the Complainant. The Complainant submitted a claim to the WRC, which resulted in a failed mediation and the matter was returned to be heard by an Adjudicator. In 2019, the Complainant applied for parental leave by reducing her hours and this was also refused. Further requests for parental leave made in April and May were also refused so she brought a further claim to the WRC in February 2020. The Respondent requested details of her plans for the next five years, but the Complainant wanted to make an application on an annual basis. After failed mediation for this claim, it was returned to be heard by an Adjudicator, but was withdrawn by the Complainant when she was granted her leave for a 6-week block in August and September 2021. On foot of this, the Complainant made a further application in October 2021 for 7 weeks in 2022, which was again refused. This time the Respondent stated that it was being refused as one block but approved the parental leave to be taken by way of a reduction to her working hours. The reason given for this was to allow all employees two weeks holidays during the summer. Further requests for a block of leave for 2023, 2024 and 2025 or for reduced hours were not confirmed by the Respondent. It stated that it would confirm with the Complainant by 30th April each year and argued at the hearing that this met its obligation as it was in excess of the 4 weeks’ notice required to be given under the Act.
Decision: Section 6 (1) of the Act states that
“An employee who is a relevant parent in respect of a child shall?be entitled?to leave from his or her employment, to be known and referred to in this Act as ‘parental leave’, for a period of 18 working weeks to enable him or her to take care of the child”. From September 2020, this period was increased to 26 weeks.
In order to avail of this entitlement, section 8 requires the employee to provide notice in writing to his employer at least six weeks in advance of the start date of the leave. The Adjudicator pointed out that the requirement to give “notice” is not a requirement to seek “approval” and she compared it to the entitlement in respect of maternity leave.
Section 11(1) of the Act provides for an employer to refuse the parental leave only on a limited basis – were
“the employer is satisfied that the taking of parental leave at the time specified in the notice would have a substantial adverse effect on the operation of his or her business, profession or occupation by reason of seasonal variations in the volume of the work concerned, the unavailability of a person to carry out the duties of the employee in the employment, the nature of those duties, the number of employees in the employment or the number thereof whose periods, or parts of whose periods of parental leave will fall within the period specified in the said notice or any other relevant matters, the employer may, by notice in writing given to the employee not later than 4 weeks before the intended commencement of the leave, postpone the commencement of the leave to such time not later than 6 months after the date of commencement specified in the relevant notice under section 8(1) as may be agreed upon by the employer and the employee”.
The Adjudicator pointed out that “employers are required to find ways to enable their employee to balance their family life with their working life”. The Adjudicator stated that where the employer does not meet the required justifications set out in Section 11(1) than parental leave may only be postponed by agreement between the employee and employer and the employer does not discretion to refuse an employee who gives notice of his or her intention to take parental leave.
The Adjudicator noted that the Respondent had not argued that it was “swamped” with applications for parental leave during the summer months. Perhaps if it had, there would have been grounds to refuse the application until a later date.
The Respondent’s Parental Leave Policy contains the following clause:
“Application for Parental Leave should be approved by your Senior Manager/Service Manager and then submitted to Human Resources for final approval in your Centre of Employment, not later than six weeks before the proposed commencement date under section 8(1) of the Act.”
The Adjudicator stated that this policy was misleading as it suggests that managers have discretion to “approve” an application and in fact provides for managers and HR to provide “final approval”. The Adjudicator therefore directed the Respondent to amend its policy and remove the word “approval” except in respect of parental leave requests for periods that are shorter than 6-week blocks.
The Adjudicator further directed the Respondent to provide confirmation to the Complainant of her parental leave for the summer of 2024 and 2025 by 1st June 2023 and to ensure that it has adequate cover for her parental leave of 2023, 2024 and 2025 as it had been given plenty of notice to provide same.
Takeaway for Employers: This decision clearly illustrates that employers must facilitate the taking of parental leave when sought to be taken in a minimum of a 6-week block and that an employer may only postpone such a request by no more than six months if it meets the justifications set out in section 11(1). The decision reminds employers that approval can only be sought if the request for parental leave is for a period of less than a 6-week block.
