Is period leave worth the HR implications?

According to the chief people officer at Probiotec, Annalinde Nickisch, the implementation of period leave means employers and policymakers face a defining choice – they must either trust women or make them prove their need.

In a recent episode of The HR Leader Podcast, Nickisch explained that more specified leave entitlements may create issues around disclosure and privacy, which will undoubtedly impact employers and employees.

Under current entitlements, she said, “you don’t need to disclose whether or not you had COVID or a mental health issue or you are currently undergoing fertility treatment”.

“However, when you create a category based on leave, you are suddenly changing that question from ‘Are you fit to work?’ to ‘Why are you not fit to work?’ And suddenly there is the concern around what you actually need to disclose,” she said.

Nickisch also pointed out that, in smaller organisations, disclosure is not going to HR, but directly to business owners, founders, and CEOs.

In this way, the question for employees becomes, “Do I need to now trade support for privacy when the current sick leave system allows for both?”

This idea – and the fact that Australia often sees high levels of unused sick leave – has certainly fuelled the nay-sayers.

In response, however, Nickisch explained that Australian sick leave entitlements themselves remain unsatisfactory, noting: “10 days is enough for getting one flu and one bout of gastro, and you’re done”.

“If you have a serious illness, a condition, ongoing chronic issues, [or] fertility treatment – 10 days is nowhere near enough,” she said.

A further complication beyond disclosure and privacy concerns, Nickisch warned, is assumptions that can be made should employees request leave for fertility treatments.

When making an employer aware of, for example, IVF treatments, “there will be an assumption that this employee will, in the very near future, go on parental leave”.

Nickisch said: “There will be companies where that will be a consideration – will I actively be promoting someone that I know for sure will soon be going on maternity leave?”

In the same vein, Nickisch addressed arguments against a policy that is seemingly gender-based, despite being written as gender-neutral.

“This conversation is not happening against the backdrop of perfect equality,” she said.

“We know women still face barriers in the workforce. That’s why there’s so much focus on things like gender, pay gap, childcare, parental leave, and workforce participation. So there’s already a range of policy design to address those challenges because they are real and they’re very well recognised.”

However, any change to leave entitlements will have complex ramifications on workforce participation, the cost of recruitment, and perhaps the inadvertent reinforcement of “some of the barriers we’ve been trying the last decade to remove”.

Nickisch said: “If you look at operational reality, 10 days is not cost-neutral. Ten days costs about 3.8 per cent … that would mean a woman now becomes 3.8 per cent more expensive than a man to recruit.”

The consideration for employers and policymakers is also that of workplace structure – while white-collar workers can often work from home for a few days to manage various illnesses, this is not an option for trades such as nursing, teaching, and labouring.

Despite the complicated policy design period leave and other entitlements required, Nickisch believes it is important.

She said: “I think as an employee you shouldn’t have to worry whether or not your specific employer will assist you in such a position. I think you should [have] the comfort that you can get sick [with] dignity and that the entitlements are lawfully there.”

Nickisch also clarified that period leave is only the latest of its kind, adding: “There have been several proposals over the years in terms of additional mental health leave, additional menstrual leave. Now it’s reproductive health leave. There have been proposals for cancer leave as well as gender affirming leave.”

“They’ve always been category-based, but none of them [has] really gone beyond government office implementation and some private corporate offices, where it is now a legislative proposal.”

Under the umbrella of paid reproductive health leave, period leave has been featured in numerous submissions to the Parliament’s examination of the operation and adequacy of the national employment standards, most notably by unions.

While the inquiry has not yet set a date for the release of its findings and recommendations, it is clear that there are many voices behind calls for additional entitlements such as paid reproductive health leave.

Regarding its potential implementation, Nickisch noted the importance of preparation.

She said: “We would do toolbox talks with employees. We would explain and educate everybody, which conditions fall within that category.”

“The best way to do it is to get your staff on board with designing that policy. The way I would do it is get a committee together, get a couple of female heads of departments together so that they can communicate with the teams and provide feedback [on] what they consider a comfortable avenue to provide this information.”

“If I’m completely allowed to design the implementation, I would not require additional proof because I don’t see why medical conditions would have to be disclosed.”

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.