Governments, too, have implemented measures to strengthen workplace approaches to IPV, focussed on both entitlements and protections for workers, and/or guidance and support for employers.
Supports (th)at work
Policy tools to support workplace action on intimate partner violence
A number of OECD countries have instituted legal reforms to extend employment protections to workers affected by intimate partner violence (typically for domestic and/or family violence), including by explicitly legislating the right to non-discrimination for victim-survivors. This could help to promote earlier identification and support, particularly given fear of stigmatisation and negative repercussions remain considerable barriers to disclosure and help-seeking. Given the significant impacts that intimate partner violence can have on people’s ability to participate in and thrive at work, it could also help to ensure that workers are not unfairly penalised for the impacts of violence on work performance (Baranska and Picard, 2024[18]). At least Australia, New Zealand and Spain have implemented employment or non-discrimination protections for victim-survivors. Other countries, including Ireland and Slovenia, have introduced employment protections in specific circumstances, for example for workers accessing domestic violence leave (in Ireland), or for employees that have reported the violence and where proceedings relating to the violence and the elimination of its consequences (for example legal proceedings) have not yet been completed (Slovenia) (discussed in further detail below).
In 2018, New Zealand amended its human rights act to extend employment protection to people affected by domestic violence, protecting against adverse and detrimental treatment including dismissal and discrimination in terms of employment or working conditions.1 In 2023, Australia made “subjection to family and domestic violence” a protected attribute under the Fair Work Act 2009, meaning that employers cannot take adverse action against employees or prospective employees because they are or have been subjected to family and domestic violence (Fair Work Commission, 2023[43]).2 Spain has introduced a number of employment rights intended to prevent the exclusion of victim-survivors from the labour market, including an entitlement for female victim-survivors to an employment-protected suspension of their employment relationship, and protection against dismissal for female victim-survivors exercising their rights (e.g. to a reduction or re‑organisation of their working hours) (Government Office for Gender-based Violence, 2022[44])3 while Ireland has legislated specific employment protections for workers accessing domestic violence leave, amending the Unfair Dismissals Act (1977) in 2023 to protect employees against unfair dismissal for taking domestic violence leave.4 In Slovenia, the Labour Relations Act (Article 189.a člen) provides for special protection in the employment relationship for employees that have experienced domestic violence in the past two years, reported the violence to the police or a social work centre, and where proceedings relating to violence and the elimination of its consequences have not yet been completed, as evidenced by a certificate from the social work centre, the court and other institutions.5
OECD countries including Australia, Italy, New Zealand, Slovenia and Spain have also extended a right to request flexible working arrangements for victim-survivors – at least in some circumstances – which could support employment by helping victim-survivors to manage the impacts of violence while maintaining employment (Table 1). What arrangements workers can request, and the circumstances under which workers can request them, varies across countries: eligible employees affected by family violence in New Zealand can request short-term flexible working arrangements for up to two months, for instance, while flexibility entitlements are somewhat broader in Spain, where female employees can also request changes to their place of work (Table 1).
Other countries such as Canada, Greece, Lithuania and Spain have more generally extended a right to request flexible working arrangements to all workers, with broader potential benefits for better work-life balance by enabling working parents to accommodate caregiving responsibilities (OECD, 2023[45]).
Notes: 1In Slovenia, this relates to victim-survivors who have experienced domestic violence in the past two years, have reported the violence to police or social services, and the proceedings relating to the violence and elimination of its consequences have not yet been completed. They are required to prove this by means of a certificate from the social work centre confirming the assessment of the risk of domestic violence, the court and other institutions.
Source: Australia: (Australian Public Service Commission, 2024[46]); Italy: (Presidency of the Council of Ministers, 2015[47]); Spain: (Government Office for Gender-based Violence, 2022[44]); New Zealand: (Employment New Zealand, 2024[48]).
The implementation of domestic violence leaves is a relatively recent development: over the past five to six years, a growing number of OECD countries have extended national paid leave entitlements to workers affected by domestic and/or family violence. These leaves recognise that those affected by violence may need to take time off from work and supports them to do so, helping to ensure that victim-survivors do not need to choose between their job and their safety. By doing so, they could help to maintain employment for victim-survivors, help businesses retain skilled employees, and help address the high costs of violence to individuals and businesses. This type of leave seems to be valued by victim-survivors, too: in a national survey and in-depth interviews conducted in Australia prior to the implementation of paid domestic and family violence leave, several victim-survivors emphasised that domestic violence leave would have supported their recovery, and helped them to plan for their safety (Fitz-Gibbon, Pfitzner and McNicol, 2023[32]).
At least six OECD countries – Australia, Canada (specified federally regulated workplaces only6), Ireland, Italy, New Zealand and Slovenia – now have national paid domestic violence leave entitlements for at least a subset of the population.7 In Australia, Ireland and New Zealand the entitlement covers all eligible employees, in Canada the entitlement is for employees in federally regulated workplaces, in Italy the leave is reserved for victim-survivors in a certified “protection” programme, and in Slovenia the leave is available to victim-survivors where proceedings relating to the violence and the elimination of its consequences have not yet been completed (including, for example, legal proceedings). The United Kingdom (Northern Ireland only) has also passed legislation to extend paid domestic abuse leave (safe leave) for all eligible employees, with implementation of the entitlement forthcoming.8 Coverage and eligibility of the leave schemes vary across countries with some important differences, including as to duration and pay, eligibility requirements, worker coverage, the circumstances under which workers can take leave, the evidentiary and process requirements for workers to take leave, and whether carers are eligible (see Annex A for a more detailed overview by country).
3.3.1. Duration and pay
OECD countries have most commonly extended an entitlement to 5 or 10 days of paid leave per year, with entitlements ranging from five days per year in Canada, Ireland and Slovenia, 10 days per year in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland only), and 90 days over a three‑year period in Italy (where the entitlement is restricted to people that have been certified to be included in “protection pathways”). In all countries leave is envisioned to be paid at 100% of employees’ normal rate of pay, though payment rules differ across countries.9 Leave is generally paid by employers, except for in Italy where leave is paid by the state social security institute: employers generally pay the leave and deduct it from the company’s social security contributions, though in some cases the social security institute pays workers directly (including for example for seasonal workers and self-employed workers).
3.3.2. Eligibility requirements and types of experiences covered
Leave is typically available to employees that have experienced domestic and/or family violence, though definitions vary across countries. These leaves are generally not intended for victim-survivors of non-partner sexual violence.
Length of service requirements vary across countries. Some countries have established a “day one” entitlement to leave (Australia, Ireland, the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)), while others include minimum length of service requirements (three months in Canada and six months in New Zealand). While there is a balance to be struck, length of service requirements may inadvertently exclude victim-survivors of violence, given they generally have weaker labour force attachment, and are therefore potentially less likely to meet minimum length of service requirements (Fair Work Commission, 2022[49]). This may be particularly challenging for victim-survivors of economic violence, where their partner has prevented them from working. In some countries perpetrators are explicitly excluded from accessing domestic violence leave, though there has been some discussion over whether such leaves should be extended to perpetrators to enable them to attend prevention programmes that might stop further violence.
3.3.3. Worker coverage
Worker coverage by contract type also varies considerably across countries, with relatively broad coverage in Australia (all full-time, part-time and casual employees), Ireland (all employees) and the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), where legislation calls for the establishment of domestic abuse leave (safe leave) for all workers, irrespective of whether they are an employee. Broad worker coverage is particularly positive given economic insecurity can heighten the risk of violence and vice versa, meaning that people in more precarious working conditions are potentially at heightened risk of violence, less able to access leave, and less able to forego the income earned from work. They therefore particularly stand to benefit from access to such leaves.
Worker coverage is narrower in Canada (employees in federally regulated workplaces with three consecutive months of continuous employment with the same employer), New Zealand (all employees with six months of continuous employment with their employer, or that have worked a minimum number of hours in a six‑month period), Italy and Slovenia. In Slovenia, leave is available to employees who have reported the violence to the police or social services, and where proceedings relating to the violence and the elimination of its consequences (including, for example, legal proceedings) have not yet been completed. In Italy, leave is available to employees who have been certified to be included in a protection programme related to gender-based violence, for example where they have accessed services from an anti-violence centre or shelter.
While these requirements for certification could help to promote help-seeking, given that the majority of victim-survivors do not report their experience to authorities, in practice these requirements are likely to serve as a barrier to access for some. In the European Union (EU), for example, data from the 2021 wave of the EU Gender-Based Violence Survey shows that on average only a third of ever-partnered women exposed to intimate partner violence disclosed the violence to one of health, social, support or police services (33%) (Figure 2). Disclosure also varies considerably across services: disclosure to health and social services is most common (25% on average across the EU), followed by police (17%) and support services (10%).
Note: EU averages are estimated. Data for Bulgaria, Portugal and Slovenia have low reliability, and should be interpreted with caution. Data collection took place between 2020 and 2024. Support service means any organisation or official body providing help to victims of violence, e.g. support services, helplines, shelters.
Source: EU survey on gender-based violence against women and other forms of inter-personal violence (EU-GBV) (wave 2021) (Eurostat, 2025[50])
3.3.4. Circumstances under which workers can take leave
Some countries specify specific circumstances – or “permissible uses” – for which the leave can be taken. Permissible uses include, for example, accessing medical and other specified services (amongst permissible reasons in Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)); arranging protection, legal and other procedures at institutions; and remedying the consequences of domestic violence (Slovenia). Other leave schemes more broadly extend an entitlement to time off where needed to deal with the impact of or issues related to the abuse (Australia and New Zealand). These broader types of provisions can help to ensure that the many circumstances for which leave may be required are covered.
The time horizon within which employees can access domestic violence leaves also varies across countries: in some countries leave is available to employees that are currently experiencing violence (Australia), though more commonly leave is generally available to employees with current or past experiences of violence (Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland). These broader time horizons can be helpful given that the impacts of violence can persist long beyond dissolution of abusive relationships. In Italy, eligible workers can take the leave within three years from the commencement date of a certified protection programme.
3.3.5. Evidentiary and process requirements to take leave
Evidentiary requirements vary considerably across countries, as countries strike varying balances between ensuring accessibility (not introducing prohibitive requirements that may serve as a potential barrier to uptake) and legitimate access, recognising the importance of believing victim-survivors when they disclose violence. Most commonly, employees do not need to provide evidence to request the leave, but employers can request at least some supporting documentation (in Australia, Canada and New Zealand). Access requirements are more stringent in Italy and Slovenia, where workers must provide evidence from public authorities/certifying agencies. In Italy, employees are required to provide employers with a certification from their municipality, by anti-violence centres or shelters. In Slovenia, employees are required to provide a certificate from the social work centre on the assessment of the risk of domestic violence, proof of a report to the police and proof of proceedings before the authorities in relation to domestic violence, for example a summons to court or a summons from the social work centre. Evidentiary requirements are less stringent in Ireland where no evidence is required, and employers are generally not permitted to request it.
Reducing the documents that need to be provided to access domestic violence leaves can reduce barriers to help-seeking, particularly given the sensitive nature of the circumstances, and the sensitivity of the information that may be requested (e.g. some victim-survivors may not be comfortable providing their employers with official reports if they contain details of the abuse) (Champions of Change Coalition, 2021[22]). An early evaluation of the operation of family and domestic violence leave in Australia, for instance, signalled that evidentiary requirements could serve as a barrier to uptake for some. In Australia, employees do not need to provide evidence to request leave, but employers can request evidence that shows employees need to do something to address the impacts of violence, and that it is not practical to do so outside their working hours. Early evaluation showed that many felt it reasonable for employers to be able to request evidence, but victim-survivors were concerned with the perceived requirement to provide onerous evidence, over half of surveyed leave takers that provided evidence reported difficulties gathering necessary evidence, and misconceptions about what evidence could be accepted were stopping some victim-survivors from accessing the leave (Commonwealth of Australia, 2024[51]; Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, 2024[52]). Clear and consistent communication from governments and employers around evidentiary requirements for leave‑taking could help to address these issues to some extent.
3.3.6. Leave for carers
Canada, Ireland and New Zealand stand out for extending domestic and family violence leave entitlements to at least some carers, meaning that parents supporting a victim-survivor child up to 18 can also access leave (in Canada); that employees supporting a “relevant person” such as a child, spouse, cohabitant or intimate partner can take leave (in Ireland); or that people who cohabit with a victim-survivor child up to 17 can also access leave (in New Zealand).
3.3.7. Early evaluation points to meaningful benefits, and areas for improvement
While few evaluations of these new domestic leave schemes have been conducted, limited early evidence points to beneficial impacts, while signalling a need for better awareness to promote uptake (see Box 3). An independent review of the operation of the Family and Domestic Violence (FDV) leave entitlement in Australia found broad support amongst employers, workers and victim-survivors of the leave entitlement; suggestive evidence that the leave entitlement was being used to help victim-survivors maintain employment and income; and that the leave had the potential to reduce stigma surrounding domestic violence (see Box 3). The review also noted concerns amongst small businesses around the resource implications of FDV leave, and pointed to a need to increase awareness of the entitlement to improve uptake, to build capacity within workplaces (and particularly amongst managers) to create an environment that facilitates disclosure and effective responses to disclosure, and to ensure that organisations have appropriate mechanisms in place to ensure trust and privacy in implementation of the leave (see Box 3). The review also highlighted heightened barriers to access for certain population groups, such as casual workers, First Nations workers and people living with a disability, amongst others, linked to language and cultural barriers, heightened shame and stigma, and fewer avenues for (and access to) support amongst other factors (Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, 2025[53]).
The Australian Government response to the review agreed to all of the review’s recommendations and set out a number of future directions for the scheme, including a maintained focus on awareness-raising, targeted measures for population groups, and ongoing evaluation. The Australian Fair Work Ombudsman has taken a number of steps to raise awareness of the entitlement, including through publicly-available communications, educational tools and resources on accessing and managing the entitlement (Fair Work Ombudsman, n.d.[54]). It will be important to continue monitoring the downstream effects of these leaves on labour market participation and economic outcomes, including on the costs and benefits to businesses.
In 2024, the Australian Industrial Transformation Institute at Flinders University conducted an independent review of the operation of Australia’s family and domestic leave entitlement, drawing on research by the Behavioural Economics Team of the Australian Government (Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet) which conducted surveys with 594 victim-survivors of family and domestic violence, 1 437 employers and 3 008 Australian workers, and interviews with 15 employers and 22 victim-survivors. The review found:
broad support for the paid leave entitlement, with ~85% of victim-survivors, 77% of employers and 87% of workers supportive
suggestive evidence that the leave was being used as intended, with the small number of paid leave‑takers amongst surveyed victim-survivors (n=46) expressing that the leave was helping victim-survivors to stay in work (89%), to maintain an income (91%) and to access support, using the time to arrange for their safety (41%) or their child’s safety (43%), and to access police (39%), medical (22%) and legal (24%) services. These findings were echoed by stakeholders in the independent review, with specialist family and domestic family violence services highlighting that the leave had allowed several victim-survivors to leave abusive relationships while maintaining some financial security (Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, 2024[55]).
Suggestive evidence that the leave entitlement has the potential to reduce stigma in the workplace: in a survey experiment, Australian workers were given a fictitious scenario of a victim-survivor accessing FDV leave, and asked to evaluate their competence and suitability for management, and to assign them a bonus. Workers who had received information about the FDV leave entitlement before being asked to carry out the evaluation rated the victim-survivor as more competent, more suitable for management, and more deserving of a higher bonus than the workers that did not receive information about the leave entitlement prior to conducting their evaluation (Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, 2024[52]).
The independent review also highlighted a number of challenges with respect to implementation of the scheme alongside challenges related to evidentiary requirements (discussed in further detail above), namely:
The review noted concerns amongst small and micro businesses around the cost and staffing implications of the leave, with just below a third of micro (28%) and small businesses (30%) raising concerns about the financial impacts of DFV leave. The research found that concerns about cost were highest amongst employers that had not provided any FDV leave (30% cited financial cost as a barrier), compared to employers that had already provided access to FDV leave (18%).
Low awareness was likely contributing to low uptake of the leave, particularly amongst casual workers. Of the small, non-representative sample of victim-survivors that reported having experienced FDV in 2023‑4, 13% had taken paid FDV leave, up from 6% prior to implementation of the entitlement, in the period between 2018‑22. Awareness of the leave entitlement was found to be fairly low, at 58% amongst employers and 39% amongst victim-survivors. Awareness and uptake of the leave was particularly low amongst casual staff, with 20% of casual employees aware of the leave, and only 1 out of 19 of surveyed casual employees that were victim-survivors accessing FDV leave. This is a particularly notable finding given that women are overrepresented in casual work with limited access to leave (Fitz-Gibbon, Pfitzner and McNicol, 2023[32]).
Researchers point to low awareness as a possible driver of low uptake, possibly combined with uncertainty about evidentiary and other requirements to access the leave, and recommend greater awareness-raising of the entitlement, including potentially a greater role for first responders to highlight the availability of leave to victim-survivors. Researchers also note that FDV leave was the first paid leave entitlement extended to casual employees through the national employment standards, and assumptions by casual workers that they are not eligible could have contributed to low awareness and/or uptake.
Concerns around trust and privacy loomed large for employees: victim-survivors reported concerns about disclosing the abuse to employers with some noting discriminatory responses when they did disclose, pointing to the critical importance of strong organisational culture and processes for effective implementation of domestic violence leaves:
The necessity to disclose abuse served as a barrier to leave access for some, with victim-survivors reporting concerns that disclosure would negatively impact their career, and concerns over their employer’s ability to maintain privacy and anonymity. Around a third of surveyed victim-survivors did not disclose the abuse to anyone they worked with, with fewer than 2 in 5 disclosing to their managers. Strong relationships between victim-survivors and managers seemed to be linked to help-seeking, with researchers finding an association between leave uptake and the degree of trust that victim-survivors reported in their manager.
Worryingly, a significant minority of the surveyed victim-survivors that accessed FDV leave (7 out of 46) reported that they were fired or asked to resign after using FDV leave, and a significant minority of employers (37%) reported feeling ill-equipped to have conversations about FDV when violence was disclosed to them.
Similar findings have been reported in the United States (US) state of Oregon, where a small-scale qualitative study three years following Oregon’s (unpaid) state leave law highlighted the potential of “IPV leave” to reduce stigma, but found that 74% of participants were not aware that the leave existed. Key barriers to access of the leave included fear of negative repercussions (concern that accessing the leave would lead to job loss, damage their career or how people at work perceived them) and lack of payment, with key implementation barriers noted as lack of awareness and lack of training for supervisors (Laharnar et al., 2015[56]).
Though legal reforms are increasingly conferring additional rights to affected workers, countries do not always explicitly require employers to take steps to protect their workers from IPV that occurs outside the workplace. While employers have obligations relating to the health and safety of their employees at work, the boundaries of employers’ responsibilities to address domestic violence have been the subject of some discussion. Legal analysis by Dentons lawyers and Thomson Reuters (2020) of a subset of OECD countries – Australia, Canada (Ontario), New Zealand, France, Italy and the United Kingdom (England and Wales) – highlighted that it is not always clear if employers’ duty of care extends to violence perpetrated outside of the workplace, even if its impacts affect employees’ health and safety at work. In Australia and New Zealand there is some recognition that domestic and family violence could constitute a risk posed to the health and safety of employees at work, while responsibilities in France and Italy were reported to be less clear (Thomson Reuters Foundation et al., 2020[57]). The Canadian state of Ontario stands out as a jurisdiction that imposes a positive duty on employers to protect their workers from domestic violence where it spills or risks spilling over into the workplace, with legislation requiring employers to protect workers if they become aware or reasonably ought to be aware of domestic violence that might expose a worker to physical injury in the workplace (Thomson Reuters Foundation et al., 2020[57]). In the United Kingdom, statutory guidance issued in connection with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 states that “employers should consider the impact of domestic abuse on their employees as part of their duty of care” (Home Office, 2022[58]). The significant increase seen in remote work since the COVID‑19 pandemic may also have implications for employers’ obligations as working from home has become more common, and the boundaries between homes and workplaces have become less rigid. Reflecting these links, the 2022 European framework agreement of the Social Dialogue Committee of Central Administrations on digitalisation highlights domestic violence, and draws attention to its prevention in the context of health and safety (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2023[9]; TUNED and EUPAE, 2022[59]).
To encourage effective workplace approaches, countries are providing guidance and support to employers to address intimate partner violence. Partnerships with specialist organisations and input from victim-survivors play an important role here, too, in ensuring that guidance is well-designed and implemented. The Irish Government has partnered with Women’s Aid to develop a Policy Template and Guidance Note to support employers in developing workplace domestic violence policies, including guidance on promoting workplace cultures that facilitate disclosures of abuse (Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, 2023[60]; Department of Children, 2023[61]). France, too, has developed a practical guide on domestic and intrafamily violence for employers with expert input from the governmental Women’s Rights Service (“service des droits des femmes et de l’égalité entre es femmes et les hommes”), the president of Association FIT (une Femme, un Toit), and other partners (Directorate-General for Administration and the Civil Service, 2023[24]). International guidance is helping to guide employer responses, too, with the International Labour Organization (ILO) publishing a guide for employers on addressing, preventing and responding to violence and harassment in the world of work (2022[62]).
Some countries have also sought to incentivise effective workplace approaches through greater recognition and transparency of good practice, with a handful of countries implementing (thus far voluntary) certifications and employer reporting. France has a voluntary label for high-performing gender equality firms which has the fight against discrimination and violence against women at work as a key criterion (Ministry of Labour, Health, Solidarity and Families, 2023[63]). Peru has launched a voluntary “Safe Company” certification and incentive mark for public and private organisations that promote gender equality at work and implement measures to prevent violence and discrimination against women at work and in the community (European Commission, 2020[64]; Government of Peru, 2025[65]).
Some countries have also embedded considerations related to intimate partner (and other types of) violence in broader gender equality obligations, including in requirements for organisational gender equality plans (in France), and mandatory pay gap reporting schemes (in Australia). France’s legal framework includes a requirement for public sector organisations and local authorities to develop a multi-year action plan for professional equality between women and men which must include (inter-alia) measures to prevent and deal with discrimination, acts of violence, sexual harassment and sexist acts.10 Government guidance suggests that preventative measures for domestic and intrafamily violence (such as awareness-raising) are intended to be in scope of this requirement for professional equality action plans (Directorate-General for Administration and the Civil Service, 2023[24]).
Australia has integrated questions on employer responses to family and domestic violence as part of its mandatory pay gap reporting scheme, meaning that companies calculating and submitting mandatory pay gap information also submit information on the availability of specific workplace supports for domestic and family violence, such as confidentiality measures, emergency accommodation assistance, and whether workplace or enterprise agreements contain a domestic violence clause. Industry and company-level information is made publicly available on the Workplace Gender Equality Agency’s website, bringing greater visibility and opportunity for comparison to workers and employers (Workplace Gender Equality Agency, 2023[66]). Looking at reported workplace supports by company size, for example, it is clear that in general larger companies in Australia (by number of employees) tend to offer more assistance to employees who are experiencing family or domestic violence than smaller companies (Figure 3). This varies by type of support: there are a set of supports that are reported to be nearly universally available across companies (confidentiality of disclosure, flexible work arrangements and Employee Assistance Programmes), while some supports are almost twice as likely in very large companies compared to smaller companies. For example, 37% of employers with 5 000 or more employees reported offering emergency accommodation assistance, compared to 19% of companies with fewer than 250 employees. This could reflect lower capacity amongst smaller employers to implement (at least some) workplace supports for people affected by family and domestic violence, and targeted support for smaller workplaces and/or robust public provision could help to ensure that victim-survivors can access the same rights and support mechanisms irrespective of where they work. Australia, for example, has developed a specific guide on family and domestic violence for small employers, including a checklist for managing family and domestic violence issues in the workplace (Fair Work Ombudsman, 2023[67]).
Share (%) of Australian private sector organisations that report a policy/strategy to support employees experiencing family or domestic violence (multiple choice), 2023‑24, by employer size (number of employees)
Note: Employers with 100 or more employees report annually against six priority areas. Only data for some company groups (by size) are shown here, to provide an indicative view of how company supports change as company size increases. Data disaggregated for companies of different sizes are available on the Australian Workplace Gender Equality Agency website. Financial support includes e.g. advance bonus payment or advanced pay.
Source: OECD Secretariat, using data from the Australian Workplace Gender Equality Agency Industry Data Explorer, available at www.wgea.gov.au/Data-Explorer/Industry.
In addition to supporting victim-survivors in the workplace, some governments have implemented specific schemes to support victim-survivors to enter the workforce, of particular importance given the deleterious impact that IPV can have on employment. The United Kingdom piloted a programme of support for women who were not working and needed to do so to leave violent relationships (UK Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Trade, 2021[21]), while Spain provides financial incentives (discounts on the company’s social security contributions) to companies that recruit women victim-survivors (Government Office for Gender-based Violence, 2022[44]). Costa Rica reports that it has piloted bilateral initiatives with private companies to find job placements for victim-survivors who are leaving specialised care centres. Social protection and employment support play a critical role in preventing and addressing the economic insecurity that can fuel and be driven by violence.
← 1. Section 39 of the Domestic Violence – Victims’ Protection Act 2018, inserting section 62A in the Human Rights Act 1993.
← 2. Section 351(1) and section 772(1)(f) of the Fair Work Act 2009.
← 3. Article 21 of Organic Law 1/2004 on Comprehensive Protection Measures Against Gender Violence.
← 4. Section 33 of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023.
← 5. Article 189.a člen of the Labour Relations Act (ZDR‑1).
← 6. Provisions for leave related to Family Violence are contained in the Canada Labour Code (Employment and Social Development Canada, 2025[70]). For more information on the industries and workplaces regulated by the Canada Labour Code, see (Government of Canada, 2025[75]).
← 7. In Costa Rica, the Instituto Nacional de las Mujeres (the public National Women’s Institute) co‑ordinates with the social security system to obtain disability leave for women at risk of femicide, to help them maintain their employment.
← 8. The relevant Act states: “the Department must make regulations entitling an employee who is a victim of domestic abuse to be absent from work on leave…for the purpose of dealing with issues related to the domestic abuse (referred to in this chapter as “safe leave”)” (Section 1 of the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022).
← 9. In Australia, for example, eligible full-time or part-time employees must be paid at the employee’s full rate of pay for the hours they would have worked had they not taken leave.
← 10. Articles L132‑1 and L132‑2 of the General Civil Service Code.