Rulings clarify time off for care of children

The "time off for children" scheme, introduced as part of Danish government's intervention to settle the private sector collective bargaining round in May 1998, has given rise to many employment law cases. Recent employment tribunal decisions - including an arbitration award in January 1999 - have made the time off more expensive, according to employers.

In May 1998, the Danish government intervened to impose a settlement to end the private sector bargaining round after a major industrial dispute had broken out (DK9805168F). Apart from one or two extra days off per year for all workers, the government's intervention also provided for "time off for children" (børnefamiliefridage), intended for employees with children up to 14 years. The measure allowed two days off in 1998, rising to three days in 1999.

Since the law was passed, disputes have arisen between the social partners as to which employees should be covered by the new provisions. Employers have attempted to limit these rights to biological or adoptive parents with children at home, while the trade unions feel the rights should also apply to more tenuous parental relationships - ie that employees who share an address with partners who themselves have children should equally have the right to time off for childcare purposes. In an arbitration award handed down in January 1999, the unions' interpretation of the law was upheld.

This means that in reality there could be four or more adults per child with the potential to take time off. That makes the economic consequences for employers even more serious than first thought, according to divisional directorPeter Schlütter of the Confederation of Danish Industries (Dansk Industri, DI) in a comment on the decision. Several trade unions are quietly satisfied that time off for children is proving dearer than expected because it may make it easier to have this special form of time off extended to all workers in the collective bargaining round in 2000, when the main organisations on both sides of the private sector negotiate again.

For the time being, no-one knows how long a couple must live together before the new partner gains the right to time off in respect of the children. In the case under consideration, the two people had been together for around a year. DI wants this question clarified by amendments to the current law.

A further point of conflict has been whether employees on so-called "weekend work" have the right to time off for children. These are workers whose working week consists of two 12-hour shifts worked purely at the weekend, who are thus free the rest of the week. Employers have interpreted the law to say that these employees have no right to time off for children, and another arbitration award has upheld this contention. However, this award stipulates that employees must be compensated with the equivalent of four days' wages for losing this right - and not just the wages for a normal seven-hour working day, but for a full working day of 12 hours. The compensation is thus equivalent to two working weeks' pay, and so also constitutes an unexpected economic burden on the companies affected.