Case study: Taking parental leave

John and Mary want to take parental leave in respect of their son Michael, who is 5 years old. John has been working for his employer for 9 months and wants to take the leave in 2 months' time. The employer has told John that he cannot spare him at this time and anyway, he is not entitled to parental leave as he hasn't been working for him for a year.

John's employer is correct about the length of service. After 3 months' service, an employee is entitled to reduced parental leave if the child is nearing the upper age limit. Since the child will not be 8 for another 3 years however, this will not apply to John's claim. John should consider taking his leave when he has one year's service. John's employer could postpone the leave then on the grounds of for example, the nature of John's duties. Unless John is involved in work with a seasonal variation however, the leave could only be postponed once for up to 6 months.

Mary has been with her employer for 15 months. Her employer says that parental leave is only for emergencies and in any case, it doesn't apply if the employee has already had 14 weeks' maternity leave. Is this right?

No, Mary's employer is mistaken. Parental leave is not confined to emergency situations and the only stipulation is that the parent uses the leave to care for the child. Mary's employer may be confusing parental leave with force majeure leave. Furthermore, the fact that Mary took maternity leave does not affect parental leave as they are completely separate types of leave set down by different laws.

As a first step, Mary should give her employer at least 6 weeks' written notice of her intention to take parental leave, the starting date and duration. Mary should keep a copy of this notice. If she has continuing difficulties with her employer, Mary should refer the case to a Rights Commissioner.