| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 207 |
| Hearing date | 4 Sep 2012 |
| Determination date | 26 September 2012 |
| Member | D Appleton |
| Representation | R McCabe ; D France |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Strang & Ors v Mount Cook Airline Ltd |
| Other Parties | Niles, Plew |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Applicants sought determination respondent breached employment agreements (“EA”) by appointing flight operations manager (“W”) as direct entry Captain and failing to place W on seniority list – Authority found terms and conditions of W’s employment provided W’s primary role directing flight operations department and respondent’s compliance with regulatory requirements and quite different to terms and conditions Captains employed under – Found W not appointed as direct entry Captain – Found W employed by respondent with purpose of acting as flight operations manager rather than as pilot and W’s flying activities incidental to W’s duties – Found W not pilot for purposes of EAs and not required to be assigned to position on seniority list – Questions answered in favour of respondent – Pilots |
| Abstract | Applicants employed by respondent as pilots. Applicants sought determination respondent breached employment agreements (“EA”) by appointing flight operations manager (“W”) as direct entry Captain and failing to place W on seniority list. Applicants EAs provided respondent to place all pilots on seniority list. ‘Pilot’ defined as duly qualified captains, first officers and any other officers from time to time engaged in flying of commercial aircraft. W appointed flight operations manager. W carried out some flying duties but respondent claimed W training to fly ATR 72-500 aircraft operated by respondent. Applicants claimed W appointed as Captain as well as flight operations manager and W should be placed on seniority list in capacity as pilot. Applicants claimed W designated as Captain on specified flight but respondent claimed documents administrative only and W not flying as Captain as had not received upgrade training to allow W to fly ATR 72-500 aircraft as pilot in command.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;DISPUTE: Authority ordered non-publication of terms and conditions of W’s employment. Respondent would not have allowed W to fly as pilot in command without receiving upgrade training. Administrative documents did not prove applicant appointed as Captain. Terms and conditions of W’s employment provided W’s primary role directing flight operations department and respondent’s compliance with regulatory requirements and quite different to terms and conditions Captains employed under. W’s flying duties to ensure had first-hand knowledge of various issues arising flying aircraft and W required to meet competency checks as pilot in command to hold flight examiner rating. W not appointed direct entry Captain. ‘Employed to act as pilot’ under EAs meant employed with purpose of acting as pilot. W employed by respondent with purpose of acting as flight operations manager rather than as pilot and W’s flying activities incidental to W’s duties. ‘Other officer’ under EAs meant officer employed to engage in flying of commercial aircraft. W not employed to engage in flying of commercial aircraft. W not pilot for purposes of EAs and not required to be assigned to position on seniority list. Questions answered in favour of respondent. |
| Result | Questions answered in favour of respondent; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s53;ERA s97(3) |
| Cases Cited | Julian v Air New Zealand Ltd [1994] 2 ERNZ 612 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_207.pdf [pdf 305 KB] |