Unions have shrugged off concerns from an peak employer group that a proposed new employee right to domestic violence leave could be used by perpetrators of family violence.
The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) – which has been running a case to establish the right to 10 days’ paid leave – has responded that perpetrators will be excluded from the provision and labelled the concern a “nonsense”.
In submissions to the Fair Work Commission the Australian Industry Group (AiG) has argued that the unions’ proposed definition of people “experiencing” domestic violence would allow perpetrators to take 10 days’ leave.
Even if the proposed definition were changed, perpetrators could still access leave if a victim engaged in threatening or abusive behaviour in self-defence, it said.
AiG submitted the union case had ignored “the incidence of violence between partners that is committed by both parties to the relationship”.
In response, the ACTU president, Ged Kearney said: “The ACTU’s position (which is clearly outlined in [its] submissions) ... is that eligibility for leave should be restricted to victims of family and domestic violence, not perpetrators.”
AiG’s head of workplace relations policy, Stephen Smith, told Guardian Australia some of its members that offer domestic violence leave had experienced perpetrators applying for leave “because policies haven’t been clear enough [that they are not entitled to it]”.
“With company policies, often companies have the flexibility to look at the circumstances and whether leave is appropriate but an award clause is enforceable and legally binding.”
Kearney told Guardian Australia the concern was “nonsense” and called for AiG to “deal with this in a grown-up, collaborative manner to make a difference to the people who are harmed by one of the biggest scourges that society has to deal with”.
“To come out with this is missing the point.”
She said workplaces with domestic violence leave already found it was “working very well, to support the people affected the violence, perpetrated by a partner”.
Kearney said granting leave involved some discernment by employers but the ACTU claim makes clear employees can be asked for evidence of their need for leave – for example, to go to court, move house, or go to hospital.
AiG’s other objections to the term include that the full 10 days of paid leave could be accessed by part-time and casual employees and the leave was not “necessary” to include in industrial awards that set minimum conditions.
AiG’s chief executive, Innes Willox, said the union’s “one-size fits all” approach to family violence was not appropriate because employers had “different capacities to provide support to employees experiencing domestic violence”.
“Many large employers have relevant policies to assist employee victims,” he said. “Smaller employers often do not have written policies but they typically adopt a reasonable and compassionate approach when their employees suffer genuine hardships.”
Kearney said: “All available evidence shows that the provision of 10 days’ paid leave for award-dependent employees leads to positive outcomes for employers and employees.”
She said the union claim would build on and complement domestic violence victim assistance that some larger corporations including PricewaterhouseCoopers, National Australia Bank and Telstra already offer.
“While many employees are now covered by enterprise agreements containing family and domestic violence leave, bargaining outcomes have not been consistent,” she said. “This is exactly why the ACTU is seeking a variation to all modern awards, to ensure clarity and consistency for all.”
