Summary#
Bill 26, An Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, would amend New Brunswick’s Employment Standards Act by adding unpaid leave for long-term illness or injury. The stated goal is to provide this leave; the bill does not guarantee any particular health or employment outcome. The supplied text is labelled first reading, so it is a proposal, not evidence that the change is law.
- An employer would have to grant an employee’s request for up to 27 weeks of unpaid leave in any 52-week period, if the employee has worked for that employer for more than 90 continuous days.
- Employees would have to tell their employer without delay when they intend to take leave, its expected start date and duration. They would have to give notice again for each separate period of leave.
- Leave could be taken only in periods of at least one week. It would begin on the first day of the week in which the employee became unable to work because of illness or injury.
- An employer could require a certificate from a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or midwife confirming the employee is unable to work because of illness or injury.
- When an employee reports for work at the end of the leave, the employer would have to allow them to return to their former job or an equivalent one, with no pay decrease or loss of benefits accrued before the leave.
- These duties would be in addition to the 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 more-than-90-days service requirement, you could request up to 27 weeks of unpaid leave in a 52-week period for illness or injury. The bill does not require the employer to pay wages during the leave.
- Employees: You would have to give notice without delay and provide the expected start date and duration. If you take leave in separate periods, you would have to give notice for each one. The employer could ask for a certificate from one of the listed health professionals.
- Employees returning from leave: The bill would require your employer to let you return to your former position or an equivalent position, without a pay decrease or loss of benefits accrued before the leave.
- Employers: You would have to grant qualifying requests, subject to the bill’s conditions, and preserve the specified return-to-work terms. The bill does not set a process for handling requests beyond the notice and certificate rules.
- Workers covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act: The bill says the new duties would not replace duties under that Act. The supplied material does not explain what those existing duties are.
Money#
No publicly available information on estimated public or employer costs.
- The leave would be unpaid, so the bill does not require wages to be paid for the leave period.
- The bill does not estimate staffing, replacement-worker, administration or other employer costs.
What is unclear#
- “Long-term illness and injury” is not defined in the supplied bill text.
- The bill does not explain how leave requests would be handled if an employer disputes whether the conditions are met, or set timelines or an appeal process.
- The supplied material does not include the existing Employment Standards Act or the relevant parts of the Workers’ Compensation Act. I could not verify how the new leave would interact with current protections or what duties sections 42.3 and 42.4 require.
- Only the first-reading text is supplied. No later amendments or information establishing whether the bill passed or when it would start are provided.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that an employee who cannot work because of illness or injury would have a defined period of job-protected, unpaid leave, subject to the service and notice rules.
- The return-to-work requirement would set a clear minimum: the employee must be allowed back to the same or an equivalent position, with no decrease in pay or loss of benefits already accrued.
- Allowing an employer to request a certificate could help confirm that the employee is unable to work, while leaving the choice to require one with the employer.
Case against#
- The leave is unpaid. Employees who cannot afford to go without wages may not be able to use it.
- The bill does not define “long-term illness and injury” or set a process for resolving disagreements about eligibility, which could leave important decisions unclear.
- Employers would have to meet the leave and return-to-work duties, but the bill provides no estimate of related staffing or administration costs.
- The bill does not set out how the new leave relates to existing employment or workers’ compensation protections.