Paid Parental Leave scheme Work Test 007-05020030

Example

Description

1

Permissible break

Michelle gave birth on 13 January 2021. The claim for PPL indicates Michelle has not worked for at least 8 hours every week in the work test period (between 18 December 2019 and 13 January 2021). However, Michelle:

• has worked 389 hours within a 10 month period since 18 December 2019, and
• did not have more than 84 continuous days break between 2 qualifying work days

Michelle had worked in excess of 330 hours in a combined 10 month period since 18 December 2019. Michelle has satisfied the PPL work test.

2

Non-permissible break - unpaid leave

Maria has been employed as a casual school teacher for the last 3 years and is expecting to give birth on 10 September 2020.

Maria's work test period is 15 August 2019 to 10 September 2020. On average, Maria works 25 hours per week. Maria was on unpaid leave from 2 May 2020 until starting a new contract on 7 August 2020 (98 days).

Maria has had a break in employment of more than 84 days (12 weeks) within the PPL qualifying period (295 days -approx. 10 months) and it is not a permissible break.

Maria does not meet the work test and is not eligible for PPL. Maria may be entitled to Newborn Supplement (NBS) and Newborn Upfront Payment (NBU) with Family Tax Benefit (FTB).

3

Including previous periods of PPL in the customer's work test/qualifying period

Kim and Brad had their first child, Kate, on 14 July 2019. PPL was paid for Kate from 14 July 2019 through to 16 November 2019. Kim returned to work on 11 January 2020.

In March 2020, Kim and Brad find out they are expecting their second child, with a due date of 22 October 2020.

Kim lodges a pre-birth claim for PPL on 10 October 2020. Kim's PPL work test period for Kim's second child is 26 September 2019 to 22 October 2020 (13 months or 392 days). In the pre-birth claim, Kim advised of stopping work on 22 August 2020. Kim did not perform 8 hours of qualifying work every week during the PPL work test period. Evidence was requested and payslips were provided by Kim.

The payslips confirm Kim completed on average, 6 hours per week paid work from 11 January 2020 to 22 August 2020. As Kim's previous PPL falls within the current PPL work test, some of these days can be included when determining if Kim meets the current PPL Work Test.

The Service Officer determines Kim's 10 month (295 days) qualifying period to be 26 September 2019 to 17 July 2020. By using this period, the Service Officer can include Kim's previous PPL period from 26 September 2019 - 16 November 2019, (266 hours). These hours, added with Kim's paid work within the qualifying period, exceeds the 330 hours work required to meet the PPL work test for the expected child.

4

Pregnancy-related complications

Jo had a history of miscarriages during the first trimester of pregnancy. When Jo became pregnant again, the doctor advised taking a period of leave from employment. Jo followed the doctor's advice and took leave without pay from the full-time job of 6 years to minimise the possibility of another miscarriage.

After 99 days of leave without pay, Jo returned to work full-time. Despite working in excess of 330 hours of qualifying work, Jo had a break of greater than 84 consecutive days (equivalent to 12 weeks) between 2 qualifying work days. As a result, Jo had a non-permissible break and did not satisfy the normal work test.

However, a medical certificate was provided, confirming Jo was unfit for work due to complications with the pregnancy. Jo's employer also advised that Jo would have worked during the period. As a result, Jo has met the work test when the evidence of the complications with the pregnancy were considered.

5

Pregnancy-related complications

During pregnancy Jean developed severe vomiting and nausea that prevented Jean from working as a casual teacher. Jean's doctor advised Jean to take a period of leave from employment. Due to being unwell, Jean followed the doctor's advice and took leave without pay from Jean's casual job of 3 years.

As Jean's condition did not improve, Jean did not return to work and therefore had only performed 85 days of qualifying work during the work test period. Jean had a break of greater than 84 consecutive days (equivalent to 12 weeks) between 2 qualifying work days. As a result, Jean had a non-permissible break and did not satisfy the normal work test.

Jean was asked to and provided a letter from Jean's medical practitioner that confirmed Jean was unfit for work due to excessive vomiting and dehydration as a result of the pregnancy. Jean was also asked to provide evidence from the employer to confirm Jean would have worked during the work test period had it not been for the pregnancy related illness. Jean contacted the agency to advise that the employer has refused to provide the evidence. As a result, Jean's application was rejected, as the agency could not be satisfied that Jean would have worked the required time had it not been for the pregnancy related illness.

Note: customers will generally be asked to provide this evidence as part of their claim.

If they cannot provide sufficient detail within the claim, Service Officers can contact the employer at the request of the customer. Information can be obtained verbally if customers cannot get evidence in writing.

6

Insufficient medical evidence

Penny was expecting a baby on 15 May.

During the PPL work test period Penny was working full time in a job that required Penny to stand for long periods of time and involved some heavy lifting.

Due to standing for long periods of time, Penny experienced back, leg and hand pain, which seemed to get worse as the pregnancy progressed.

As a result, Penny decided to start maternity leave earlier than expected. Penny stopped work on 11 January.

As Penny had a non-permissible break of more than 84 consecutive days (equivalent to 12 weeks) between 2 qualifying workdays, the normal work test was not satisfied, and Penny's PPL claim was rejected.

Penny then provided medical evidence from a doctor which listed the reasons why Penny finished work earlier than expected. However, the medical evidence did not state that the complication/illness was exacerbated by pregnancy, and prevented Penny from working. A letter from Penny's employer was also provided saying that Penny would have worked for the period had it not been for the complication/illness.

As the medical evidence did not state that Penny was unfit for work due to the complication/illness being exacerbated by the pregnancy, the agency could not be satisfied Penny met section 36A.

If Penny was to provide additional medical evidence that confirms the complication/illness was exacerbated by the pregnancy, which prevented Penny working, the agency could reassess Penny's claim.

7

Paid leave

On 18 September 2020, Danielle gave birth and started paid maternity leave, long service leave and recreational leave from work. Danielle returned to work full time on 9 April 2021.

Danielle is expecting to give birth to another child on 20 October 2021. Danielle's work test period for the expected child is 23 September 2020 to 20 October 2021 (392 days from the expected date of birth).

The time Danielle was absent from work while on paid leave during the work test period counts towards the work test. Danielle should include having worked 8 hours every week for this period of paid leave when completing the claim for the newborn child.

8

Permissible break within the work test period

Louise is expecting to give birth on 13 January 2021.

Louise's 392 day work test period starts on 18 December 2019. Louise did not work on this day.

Louise worked for one day on 1 November 2019 and then worked continuously from 31 December 2019 to 13 October 2020.

To satisfy the work test, Louise needs to establish a qualifying period of 295 consecutive days between:

• the start of the work test period, 18 December 2019, and
• when stopping work on 13 October 2020

As Louise performed qualifying work on 1 November 2019 and on 31 December 2019 and, as the period between these dates was less than 84 days, Louise can be considered to have been on a permissible break between the start of the work test period on 18 December 2019, and the day qualifying work was performed on 31 December 2019.

As a permissible break counts towards the work test, Louise is considered to have worked 300 days between 18 December 2019 and 13 October 2020. Therefore, if the requirement for 330 hours of qualifying work is met, and there are no gaps of more than 56 days between any consecutive working days, Louise would meet the work test. Louise's period of qualifying work performed during the work test period is at least 295 consecutive days.

• Louise's hours worked on 1 November 2019 do not count towards the 330 hours required to meet the work test nor the 295 consecutive days, as this day is only to establish that a period within the work test period was a permissible break and to provide some flexibility in circumstances where the claimant does not work on the start day of the 13 month work test period.

9

A non-permissible break - still meets PPL work test

Peta is expecting to give birth on 1 February 2021.

Peta's 392 day work test period starts on 6 January 2020. Peta stopped employment on 2 December 2019, and started work with another employer on 6 March 2020, a break of more than 84 days.

Peta then works every week from 6 March until 31 December 2020, a period of 300 consecutive days. The break between working days that occurred early in the work test period is not a permissible break as it was a break of more than 84 days. The break does not affect Peta's eligibility for PPL because there was still a qualifying period of at least 295 consecutive days in the work test period where Peta performed qualifying work or had a permissible break.

The exception to this rule is if a PPL customer stops employment early or reduces their hours of employment due to:

• their child being delivered prematurely, or
• if the birth mother experienced pregnancy-related complications or illness

The customer must then provide evidence to support their PPL claim that the work test would have been met had the complications or premature birth had not occurred.

Note: in the instance of pregnancy-related complications or illness, the customer must provide evidence from their doctor or hospital to:

• confirm what the complication or illness is, and
• that it was a direct result of the pregnancy

Verification (verbal is acceptable) from their employer they were intending to work during this period is also required. Verbal employer verification must be documented on the customer's record.

10

A non-permissible break - still meets PPL work test

Olivia is expecting to give birth on 20 May 2021.

Olivia's 392 day work test period starts on 23 April 2020 (13 months before the baby's expected date of birth). Olivia stopped employment on 27 April 2020, and started work with another employer on 22 July 2020, a break of more than 84 days.

Olivia then works every week from 22 July 2020 until 17 May 2021, a period of 300 consecutive days. The break between working days that occurred early in the work test period is not a permissible break as it was a break of more than 84 days. The break does not affect Olivia's eligibility for PPL because there is still a qualifying period of at least 295 consecutive days in the work test period where Olivia performed qualifying work or had a permissible break.

The exception to this rule is:

• if a PPL customer stops employment early or reduces their hours of employment due to their child being delivered prematurely, or
• if the birth mother experienced pregnancy-related complications or illness

The customer must then provide evidence to support their PPL claim that the work test would have been met had the complications or premature birth not occurred.

Note: in the instance of pregnancy-related complications or illness, the customer must provide evidence from their doctor or hospital to:

• confirm what the complication or illness is, and
• that it was a direct result of the pregnancy

Verification (verbal is acceptable) from their employer they were intending to work during this period is also required. Verbal employer verification must be documented on the customer's record.

11

Dangerous Job provision

Vicki is a self-employed professional boxer. After learning of the pregnancy, Vicki was required to stop working immediately due to the hazards the job presented to the pregnancy, and in accordance with the industry's regulations. Vicki's last day at work was 5 December 2019.

The expected date of birth of Vicki's baby is 5 July 2020. On 20 May 2020, Vicki lodged a pre-birth claim for PPL. The initial work test period for the claim is from 9 June 2019 to 5 July 2020. Vicki will not meet the work test, as there is more than a 12 week continuous gap between 2 work days in the work test period.

Vicki indicated in the claim that Vicki was required to stop working in a dangerous job. The work test period was moved to an earlier period. Vicki's new work test period is 8 November 2018 (392 days before the date Vicki stopped work) to 5 December 2019.

Vicki provided:

• a full job description in a statutory declaration to confirm self-employment as a professional boxer, and
• the industry regulations that state boxers are not permitted to work while pregnant

As Vicki has provided the required evidence to support having to stop work due to the risk to the pregnancy of Vicki's profession, Vicki was deemed to meet the dangerous job provision.

Vicki advised of completing 8 hours work every week in the new work test period and subsequently was assessed as meeting the PPL work test.

12

Dangerous Job provision

Mandy was employed as an underground miner. On 5 May 2020, Mandy advised the employer Mandy was 9 weeks pregnant. Under their employee's workplace agreement, Mandy had to stop work immediately. Mandy's last day of work was 5 May 2020.

Mandy started a new casual job in a local supermarket with a new employer on 25 August 2020. Mandy's last day of work with this employer was 6 November 2020.

Mandy had lodged a pre-birth claim for PPL and advised the baby's expected date of birth is 8 December 2020, and the work test period is 12 November 2019 to 8 December 2020. Mandy does not meet the work test as there was more than a consecutive 12 week gap between 2 work days in the work test period (5 May 2020 to 25 August 2020 - a total of 112 day continuous gap).

Although Mandy started work with a new employer, Mandy can still meet the PPL work test under the dangerous job provision for this pregnancy. Mandy will need to provide evidence from the employer that Mandy stopped work due to the hazards that presented a risk to the pregnancy and a doctor supports these claims.

Mandy provided:

• proof from the employer confirming employment as an underground miner, working with explosives and a copy of their workplace agreement, and
• a letter from a doctor to support the claim for the dangerous job provision to be applied

Mandy met the Dangerous Job provision and the work test period was moved to the 13 month period before the date Mandy stopped work as a miner, 9 April 2019 to 5 May 2020. Mandy still needs to meet the work test in the new work test period.

13

Dangerous Job provision

Taylah started working on 20 January 2019 as a housekeeper at a mine in Perth WA. On 5 August 2019, Taylah advised the employer that Taylah was pregnant. Taylah stopped working on 29 August 2019.

Taylah lodged a pre-birth claim for PPL and advised the expected date of birth was 20 January 2020. Taylah provided proof confirming employment as a housekeeper and that Taylah stopped employment on the 29 August. Taylah's employer stated in letter that because of high temperatures it was no longer appropriate or safe to continue working.

Taylah does not meet the Dangerous Job provision. Taylah did not provide sufficient proof that the work hazards (high temperatures) posed a risk to the pregnancy. A statement from Taylah's employer (who is not a medical professional) was not sufficient evidence of risk. The evidence Taylah provided does not support the claim for a Dangerous Job provision.

14

Working for a Family Business and not being paid

Casey works 2 days per week for Casey's partner's plumbing business. Casey does the administrative and ordering, but does not receive a salary or any financial benefits from this work.

Casey has lodged a PPL claim and as has not declared any income for ISP payment. Casey is asked to provide evidence that the work test is met. Casey has worked at least 8 hours each week and although Casey does not receive any income for the work performed for the business, it means that they do not have to pay someone to do the work.

Casey does not met the work test.

If a person is doing work for a family business and the benefit is not having to employ someone else, this is a benefit for the business, not for the person performing the work. In order to count as qualifying work the person must show that they are receiving a tangible benefit that is in kind for the work being performed and would not otherwise be received.

15

Dangerous job provision - COVID-19

Jane is employed as a nurse by Victoria State Government, Department of Health. Jane's child's expected date of birth is 15 November 2020.

On 8 April 2020, the employer advised Jane of the need to stop work due to the increased risk to the pregnancy with the COVID-19 pandemic. As Jane will have a non-permissible break of more than 12 weeks during the work test period (20 October 2019 – 15 November 2020), Jane will not meet the usual PPL scheme work test. Jane provides all required information to confirm the requirement to stop work due to the increased risk to the pregnancy.

As Jane has met the Dangerous Job provision, the work test period was moved to the 13 month period before the date they stopped work as a nurse, 13 March 2019 to 8 April 2020.

Jane still needs to meet the work test in the new work test period.

16

Dangerous job provision - COVID-19 vaccination

Jane is employed as a nurse in an aged care facility.

From 1 January 2022, Jane's employer made it mandatory for all staff to receive the COVID-19 vaccinations. Staff still not vaccinated after this date were stood down from their work duties. Jane is pregnant, and opted not to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

Jane's last day at work was 31 December 2021 and they started unpaid leave on 1 January 2022.

Jane's child's expected date of birth is 15 April 2022.

Jane provided a letter from their employer confirming they have been on unpaid leave since 1 January 2022 due to Jane's vaccination status. Jane has not provided a letter from a medical practitioner advising that the vaccine poses a risk to Jane's pregnancy.

As Jane will have a non-permissible break of more than 12 weeks during the work test period (1 January to 15 April 2022), Jane will not meet the usual PPL scheme work test. Jane has not met the requirements to access the Dangerous Job provision.

Jane does not meet the work test for PPL.

17

Dangerous job provision - COVID-19 vaccination

Ruby is employed by the Happy Family Child Care Centre in NSW.

From 1 January 2022, Ruby was required to have the COVID-19 vaccinations to continue working for Happy Family Child Care. As Ruby had experienced some health issues with this pregnancy, Ruby contacted a medical professional to:

• discuss the vaccination, and
• if it would be safe for Ruby to be vaccinated during this pregnancy

The doctor:

• advised that in Ruby's particular circumstances the vaccination did pose a risk to the pregnancy, and
• recommended that Ruby receive it following the birth

Ruby was able to access the Dangerous Jobs provision to meet the PPL work test, as Ruby has provided both:

• evidence from their employer confirming the vaccination requirements, and
• a letter from their doctor confirming the vaccination posed a risk to the pregnancy

18

Dangerous Job provision vs Pregnancy related complications/illness - COVID-19

Louise was employed as a café worker. Louise's employer was forced to close the business during the COVID-19 pandemic on 1 May 2020. Louise became unemployed as a result of this closure.

Louise's child was born on 1 December 2020.

As Louise:

• stopped work due to the employer closing their business due to COVID-19, and
• cannot meet the standard PPL work test
• Louise is eligible to the extended PPL work test

In the claim, Louise indicates they worked for at least 330 hours during a 295 day qualifying period within the 600 day extended PPL day work test period.

• Louise meets the PPL scheme work test.

19

When to request evidence a customer meets the PPL Work test

Laura has indicated in the PPL claim that the work test has been met. Laura's record indicates an ISP was received during the qualifying period and there is insufficient income recorded.

It would be appropriate to request evidence to confirm Laura met the PPL Work Test.

Other instances where it would be appropriate to request evidence the customer meets the PPL work test:

• the customer was receiving an ISP during the qualifying period, where insufficient income or self-employment information has been recorded on the ISP customer's record for the qualifying period, or
• there is reason to believe the claimant is not eligible for PPL. For example they are:
• a contractor or casual employee and submit a pre-birth claim more than 12 weeks before their child's EDOB, and they indicate they are not working
• not self-employed, and have a low PPL income estimate (less than $8,000)

• working for their partner or another family member and are not working for payment or financial gain

20

Voluntary work

Sam is employed by the Australian Defence Force as an Instructor of Cadets. Even though Sam is paid an allowance for the work, Sam's employer deems Sam's work as voluntary work.

Because Sam's work is in the nature of volunteering, it does not constitute paid work even if financially rewarded. Although Sam has invested time and energy into the role as an Instructor of Cadets and has been paid an allowance, the activity cannot be counted towards the work test.

If the customer is a …

… then the 295 day (10 month) qualifying period

PPL claimant (including claimants in exceptional circumstances for PPL)

Must be in the past.

If the work test is not met for a pre-birth claim, it may be met once the child is born/enters care. The customer is encouraged to test their eligibility once the work test has been met.

For a child born or adopted before 1 July 2023

PPL secondary claimant in normal circumstances, or

DAP claimants

Can include days in the future.

It can include days they have worked and days they expect to work.

Example

Description

1

Employed by partners business for 'non cash benefit'

Elsa worked for partner John's fencing business, ordering materials and booking appointments. Elsa did not receive a paid wage. Elsa claimed PPL, advising:

• Elsa worked 8 hours per week every week in the PPL work test period, and
• Elsa's income for the relevant financial year was $0

The Service Officer called Elsa to discuss the income details provided. Elsa told the Service Officer that in return for the work performed, John paid for the:

• accommodation
• groceries
• car
• petrol, and
• a mobile phone

As Elsa is employed by John's business, the benefits received by Elsa would have been provided to Elsa normally as part of the family/domestic relationship.

• As this is the only work that Elsa completed in the work test period and Elsa cannot provide any evidence to prove these non-cash benefits would not have otherwise been paid, Elsa does not meet the work test.

2

Employed by partners business for 'non cash benefit'

Salleen performed unpaid work as a bookkeeper for partner's accountancy business.

Salleen provided a signed letter from partner, James, on their business letterhead advising:

Salleen has been responsible for the running of our family business for the past 5 years. Salleen's workload is spread across the working week and at a minimum would be 2 full days a week. Over 10 months, Salleen has worked a minimum of 688 hours.'

Salleen advised that by working for James' business Salleen received non-cash benefits including:

• housing
• food, and
• the profit from the business

As Salleen is employed by James, and the non-cash benefits received would have been provided normally as part of the family/domestic relationship, Salleen does not meet the work test.

3

Employed by parents business

Lilly has worked for their parent's clothing store for the last 10 years. Lilly works 8 hours a week, every week and receives non-cash benefits in the form of clothes in return for the work performed.

Lilly provided a letter from their parents on company letterhead of the financial arrangement.

It is reasonable that Lilly would not have received this non-cash benefit had Lilly not performed the work. Lilly meets the work test.

Criteria

Description

Criteria 1

Customer has a complication or illness directly related to this pregnancy

The customer:

• is experiencing a complication/illness directly related to this pregnancy, for example a low lying placenta, pelvic girdle pain, or
• had a complication or illness before their pregnancy, and this complication or illness was made worse by the pregnancy, for example the customer had lower back pain before becoming pregnant and this illness is now exacerbated by the pregnancy

This criteria is not met where the customer is suffering from a complication/illness not specifically related to the pregnancy such as stress and anxiety caused by caring for a sick family member or bullying in the workplace.

Note: stress and anxiety related directly to the pregnancy may satisfy this criteria, for example, the customer has had previous miscarriages which has caused anxiety and stress and this has resulted in the customer having to stop work or take an extended period of time off work based on medical advice.

Criteria 2

The complication or illness that was directly related to the pregnancy, prevents or prevented the person from performing their current paid work

This is met if the customer is/was prevented from performing their current paid work due to the pregnancy related illness or complication and no other job alternative can be provided by the employer, the customer does not have to be prevented from performing any paid work.

For example, a person may be prevented from performing their current job as a process worker in a factory and their employer is unable to provide a safe job alternative. This person would satisfy this criteria even if there was a possibility that they could work in a different job such as an office job.

Note: this does not include customers who are prevented from working due to a dangerous occupations such as jockeys, x-ray consultants. The inability to perform their current work must be as a result of the pregnancy-related complication/illness.

Criteria 3

The Service Officer is satisfied the customer would have met the work test under section 32A of the PPL act 2010, had it not been for the pregnancy-related complication or illness that prevented them from performing their current paid work

This requires the Service Officer to establish that the customer would have been working and would have satisfied the work test had it not been for the pregnancy related illness or complication.

Examples

• A permanent worker who was working full time for several years before they became pregnant was required to stop working in their current job because they were suffering from pregnancy-induced high blood pressure and they needed to rest
• A full time worker with a consistent work history is no longer employed due to the employer's business closing down. Before losing employment, the employee was diagnosed with a pregnancy-related illness that prevented them from working. Based on the strong connection to the workforce, it is reasonable to conclude that if not for the pregnancy-related illness, they would have regained employment to satisfy the work test
• A contract worker who had just stopped a contract and found out they could not start a new contract because they had a pregnancy-related illness could also satisfy a decision maker that they would have been working or taking on new work, but for the pregnancy-related illness if they have a reasonable work history

Evidentiary Requirements

In all cases, medical evidence is required from a doctor stating what the complication is and that it is a direct result of the pregnancy or for a pre-existing condition or illness that is exacerbated as a result of this pregnancy.

The doctor also needs to state that the complication/illness prevents the person from performing their current paid work. If the customer does not satisfy all the above, they do not meet the requirements of 36A and do not meet the PPL Work Test.