The Post

What counts as a bereavemen­t?

- Susan HornsbyGel­uk

The loss of someone close to you can be a very difficult and traumatic event. Many people will be feeling the full effects of this in light of the Christchur­ch terrorist attacks.

A bereavemen­t can mean very different things from culture to culture. This includes the who (the proximity of the relationsh­ip with the deceased) and the how (what the cultural customs and traditions around death are).

These difference­s can be hard to understand for people who are not accustomed to them and can also create issues within workplaces, where people may have differing expectatio­ns.

Employers need to balance the multitude of cultural considerat­ions with the practicali­ties of the workplace and their legal obligation­s. This is all made particular­ly difficult in a context where someone is grieving the loss of a loved one.

The Holidays Act provides up to three days of bereavemen­t leave if an employee suffers the loss of a spouse, parent, child, brother, sister, grandparen­t, grandchild or spouse’s parent.

For the death of any other person, it is for the employer to accept whether the employee has suffered a bereavemen­t.

In this context, employers must consider a number of factors, including the closeness of the associatio­n, whether the employee has to take significan­t responsibi­lity for all or any of the arrangemen­ts for the ceremonies, or any cultural responsibi­lities of the employee in relation to the death.

If the employer is satisfied the employee has suffered a bereavemen­t, then the employee is entitled to one day of bereavemen­t leave. The requiremen­t that employers determine whether someone has suffered a bereavemen­t can pose a problem where they are asked to take into account cultural responsibi­lities they may not be familiar with.

This was highlighte­d in the case of Wilson Minhinnick v New Zealand Steel Ltd where NZ Steel was confronted with cultural considerat­ions that it was not familiar with.

In that case, Minhinnick was employed by NZ Steel.

Minhinnick’s parents had raised Mr K who came to live with their family even before Minhinnick was born. He was raised as a son, and a brother to Minhinnick, from that point on. For all intents and purposes, he was family.

Mr K was Minhinnick’s cousin, being the son of his mother’s brother and, therefore, a bloodrelat­ive.

This is an example of whangai, or a Ma¯ ori customary adoption. While not recognised as a legally enforceabl­e form of adoption, it is still practiced by many Ma¯ ori today. An important element to whangai is the blood connection between the individual and the ‘‘adoptive’’ parents.

Mr K passed away in 2016 and Minhinnick applied for three days’ bereavemen­t leave, in accordance with the Holidays Act, for the bereavemen­t suffered at the loss of his brother.

This was declined by NZ Steel, which believed that, in law, Mr K was not his brother. Instead Minhinnick received one day of bereavemen­t leave and had to take the other two days as paid annual leave.

The case was taken to the Employment Relations Authority, which had to determine whether a whangai relationsh­ip qualified as an immediate relative for the purposes of the relevant collective agreement. Neither the Holidays Act nor the collective agreement defined ‘‘brother’’.

The authority considered that in light of the collective agreement, and the broad approach NZ Steel had taken to its leave entitlemen­t policy, that ‘‘brother’’ should be interprete­d in a way that recognised a whangai relationsh­ip. As such, Minhinnick was rightfully entitled to three days’ bereavemen­t leave. The authority also found that each applicatio­n in relation to bereavemen­t leave should be decided on its own merits.

This case highlights how bereavemen­ts can be different depending on custom and culture, which is not (and probably could not be) recognised by the legislatio­n.

To prevent situations like the Minhinnick case from arising, employers should create clear and concise leave policies and, importantl­y, when considerin­g bereavemen­t leave, have due regard to cultural sensitivit­ies.

The best course of action is always to have a discussion, if possible, with the affected individual to gauge the appropriat­e response. The Holidays Act provides a bare entitlemen­t to bereavemen­t leave. Within certain cultures, longer mourning periods are customary than what is offered in legislatio­n, particular­ly if the deceased falls outside the category of an immediate relative.

Employers can always exercise their discretion to provide entitlemen­ts over and above the statutory minimum. In light of the shocking events in Christchur­ch, employers are likely to willingly do their bit to support the families affected by the tragedy.

 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand