Unpaid illness leave could reach 27 weeks

Summary#

Bill 26, An Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, would amend New Brunswick’s Employment Standards Act by adding a new unpaid leave for long-term illness or injury. Its stated purpose is to provide eligible employees with time away from work when illness or injury makes them unable to work. The supplied material is the first-reading text; no amendment text is supplied, so this summary describes the bill as introduced.

  • An employer would have to grant an employee’s request for up to 27 weeks of leave in any 52-week period, if the employee has worked for that employer for more than 90 continuous days and meets the section’s conditions.
  • Leave would be unpaid, could be taken in separate periods of at least one week, and would start on the first day of the week in which the employee became unable to work. The bill defines a week as running from midnight Saturday to midnight the following Saturday.
  • Employees would have to notify the employer without delay of their intention to take leave and the anticipated start date and duration. They would have to give this notice for each separate period.
  • An employer may require a certificate from a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or midwife stating that the employee cannot work because of illness or injury.
  • When an employee reports to work at the end of the leave, the employer must allow them to return to their former position or an equivalent one, with no decrease in pay and no loss of benefits accrued before the leave began.
  • These duties would be in addition to, and would not reduce, an employer’s duties under sections 42.3 and 42.4 of the Workers’ Compensation Act.

What it means for you#

  • Employees: If you meet the service requirement and the bill’s conditions, you could request up to 27 weeks of unpaid leave in a 52-week period. The bill would protect your return to work on the terms it specifies, but it would not provide wages during the leave.
  • Employers: You would have to grant a qualifying request and provide the specified return-to-work protection. You could require one of the listed health professionals’ certificates. The bill does not require an employer to request one.
  • People covered by workers’ compensation rules: The bill says these leave duties are additional to the employer’s duties under the named provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act. That Act was not supplied, so the existing duties and any overlap cannot be verified here.
  • Everyone else: The bill does not directly change taxes, create a paid benefit, or establish a new public service.

Money#

No publicly available information on the bill’s expected cost is included in the supplied material.

  • The leave would be without pay. The bill does not state how employers or government would cover any resulting costs, or estimate those costs.
  • The bill creates duties for employers but provides no cost estimate for them.

What is unclear#

  • “Long-term illness and injury” is not defined in the bill. It does not specify how long an illness or injury must last to qualify.
  • The bill does not set out an application or dispute process, decision timelines, or an appeal route.
  • It does not say what evidence is needed if an employer does not request a certificate, or address how the leave limit applies in particular circumstances.
  • The current Employment Standards Act and the Workers’ Compensation Act were not supplied, so existing leave rights and the interaction with those laws could not be checked.
  • The text gives no start date. Passage is uncertain because the supplied bill is at first reading.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to let employees who cannot work because of illness or injury take an extended period away without losing the specified return-to-work protection.
  • A possible argument for the approach is that it gives eligible employees time away while limiting the employer’s duty to unpaid leave and allowing the employer to request medical certification.
  • The notice rules and minimum one-week periods could give employers advance information about the expected leave, where an employee can provide it.

Case against#

  • A central concern is that the leave is unpaid, so eligible employees may still face a loss of income while unable to work.
  • The bill does not define “long-term illness and injury” or explain how eligibility would be decided, which could leave important questions unresolved for employees and employers.
  • The bill does not explain how the new leave fits with existing employment and workers’ compensation rules, or provide a process for resolving disagreements.
  • The leave must be taken in periods of at least one week and starts from the first day of the week when the employee became unable to work. Those rules may not fit every illness or injury, though the bill does not explain how they would apply in specific cases.