KEY POINTS:
A young Auckland couple is celebrating a landmark victory against the Department of Labour, which could set a precedent for redundant workers' entitlement to paid parental leave.
Customer services representative Carla van Walen and her plumber husband Kevin took the department to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) after being told she was ineligible for paid maternity leave because she had been made redundant.
They couldn't afford a lawyer, so prepared and presented the case themselves.
The ERA has ordered the decision against Carla should be reversed.
In February, Carla was seven months pregnant when she turned up for work, as usual, at her job with The Joneses real estate company, only to find the office phone lines and computers were dead.
Later that day she and the other staff were called to a meeting and told the company was being put into voluntary liquidation.
"It was a company I'd been with almost since day one," she said. "I believed in the philosophy and the directors - there wasn't a dry eye in the house."
But worse was to come. Later that day she contacted the IRD to check her leave entitlement.
She had taken the precaution of applying for paid parental leave (PPL) back in December and the IRD had advised her she would be paid $391.28 a week, less tax and student loan deductions, from March 10 to June 5.
Her case was passed to the Department of Labour.
Just hours after losing her job she was told, over the phone by a department information officer, that she was ineligible to receive PPL because her employment had "terminated" three weeks before her leave was scheduled to start. The decision was later confirmed in writing: "This means that you do not have a position from which to take parental leave," a letter from the Labour Department said.
"I was devastated," said Carla. "We were counting on that last bit of income," added Kevin. "We hadn't even bought a pram."
With a baby on the way Carla and Kevin refused to accept the decision.
"It just wasn't fair," he said. "She hadn't done anything wrong."
The couple couldn't afford a lawyer or find anyone else willing to take the case on. So they did it themselves, and Kevin presented their case in court.
"It was all based around that four weeks' notice period. Carla did everything by the book."
Robin Arthur, for the ERA, agreed, saying the Department of Labour's decision should be reversed.
He said Carla's employment agreement clearly stated she should be given one month's notice of termination, and that term was "not extinguished" by The Joneses' decision to put itself into liquidation.
The notice took her beyond the start date of her PPL, while she was still an eligible employee.
Arthur said it was up to the department and ultimately Parliament to consider whether there was an "apparent gap" in eligibility for PPL.
The Department of Labour said in the vast majority of cases it was clear whether an expectant parent met the criteria for PPL.
"This case, however, involved an unusual set of circumstances - an applicant made redundant three weeks before maternity leave was due to start.
"The initial assessment, based on the information provided, was that this applicant did not meet the specified criteria.
"The applicant was advised of her right to have the decision reviewed by the ERA, and she exercised that right."
The department said the ERA decision was "helpful" in resolving an area of uncertainty.
Carla, Kevin and son Taylor, born last month, are now looking forward to receiving their cheque from the IRD. "As soon as possible would be nice," said Carla.
