PD Pet Insurance has done something most employers will quietly admire and a few will copy. From 1 October, all 200 of its staff across New Zealand and Australia get two extra days of paid leave when a pet dies, on top of their statutory bereavement entitlement. Chief operating officer Michelle Le Long calls it a feel-good factor that “costs very little”, and she is probably right.
That is the story, and it is a good one. It shows exactly how workplace benefits should evolve. A business saw a need in its own workforce, priced it, and wrote it into policy. Nobody in Wellington had to lift a finger.
A perk that grew out of a real loss
The policy did not come from an HR consultant chasing a trend. According to Le Long, it followed head of operations Sheryl Atkins losing her 15-year-old dog Harry to leukaemia, and colleagues watching her put on a brave face with customers. An informal offer of time off became formal policy. Le Long described it as cost neutral, reasoning that most people do not lose a pet often.
It is worth being clear-eyed about the brand fit. PD sells pet insurance, a product built on the idea that pets are family. Its staff are disproportionately likely to own animals and spend their days dealing with grieving customers. The leave is humane, but it is also on-message. That is not a criticism. Benefits that suit a firm’s people and its brand are precisely the kind that work.
The honest alternative to a sickie
The strongest business case comes from Massey University management professor Jarrod Haar. He concedes the idea can look like a gimmick, but argues it builds loyalty because staff who use it will think, in his words, “geez, I like working here”. His sharper point is about honesty. Employees can already take sick leave when a pet dies, and many do. A dedicated, bounded benefit swaps a dishonest sickie for what Haar calls an open and honest conversation.
For employers, that matters. Unplanned absence disguised as illness is hard to manage and corrodes trust. A transparent two-day allowance, used rarely, is easier to plan around.
The grief is not trivial either. A UK survey of nearly 1,000 adults cited by PD found 7.5% of people who lost a pet met the criteria for prolonged grief disorder, and about one in five who had experienced both rated the pet’s death as more distressing than a human loss. The data comes via a company with a stake in the answer, so treat it as indicative, but it supports the instinct that some staff will genuinely need the time.
The law already allows this
Here is the part missing from most coverage. There is no legal gap to fill. The Holidays Act 2003 sets a floor of three paid days for the death of immediate family, one day at the employer’s discretion for others, and cover for miscarriage and stillbirth. Official employer guidance confirms businesses can offer more generous bereavement leave or extra special leave by agreement. PD simply used that freedom.
Parliament does revisit the bereavement rules when there is a clear health case. The 2021 miscarriage amendment is the obvious example. Pets have never been part of that conversation, and they should not be.
Why a mandate would backfire
Public appetite is real. PD’s own surveys found 82.3% support for employer-provided pet leave in 2024. Popular, emotionally resonant perks have a habit of drifting toward statute, especially in an election year when politicians want cheap wins that someone else pays for.
A blanket entitlement would land the same obligation on a five-person builder as on a pet insurer, regardless of relevance or capacity to absorb it. It would invite definitional fights over which animals count, add another line to payroll compliance and, ironically, kill the goodwill Haar describes. A benefit an employer chooses to give earns loyalty. One the law forces it to give earns none.
Even sympathetic voices have drawn this line. Back in 2024, psychologist Lisa Cohen said pet grief hits people in different ways but did not believe workplaces should be mandated to offer leave. When Le Long discussed the idea on RNZ in June, the framing was voluntary employer support, not legislative change.
What employers should take from it
The lesson for business owners is not that everyone needs pet leave. It is that small, well-targeted benefits can buy outsized loyalty if they fit your people. Look at your workforce, decide what actually matters to them, and write it into agreements on your own terms.
PD has shown the system working as intended. The test now is whether policymakers resist the urge to improve on it. Every life event does not need a clause in the Holidays Act, and the employers who get this right do not need permission.
Join the discussion
Add useful context, ask a good question, or challenge an idea — keep it specific and respectful.