| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Wellington 158 |
| Hearing date | 18 Jun 2013 |
| Determination date | 10 December 2013 |
| Member | M Ryan |
| Representation | R McCabe ; S Hornsby-Geluk |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | New Zealand Airline Pilots Assoc Inc v Airways Corporation of New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Parties disputed interpretation of rest break provision clause in collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – Respondent to provide for relief staff to be available to allow employees to take rest breaks in specified circumstances – Whether function of each operating position essential to integrity of unit – Whether air traffic controller functions essential such that work could not be reasonably off loaded – COMPLIANCE ORDER – Applicant sought compliance with rest break provision clause in CEA – Whether respondent failed to provide relief staff to cover employees’ rest breaks – Whether air traffic controller working solo watch during night shift essential to keeping unit open – Whether de-manning work to air traffic controller in different sector resulted in closure of unit and caused respondent to breach service agreement with Civil Aviation Authority – Whether air traffic controller in different sector properly validated to perform work in Wellington sector – Whether air traffic controller in different sector providing “listening watch” performed work or simply maintained status quo |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;DISPUTE: CEA did not impose general requirement on respondent to provide rostered relief staff. Rostered relief staff only required where function of each operating position in three cities essential to integrity of unit and work could not be reasonably off loaded. Purpose of rest break provision clause in CEA to ensure air traffic controllers able to take rest periods when workload unable to be deferred or redirected. Respondent entitled to determine staff coverage. Question answered in favour of respondent.;COMPLIANCE ORDER: No tangible evidence air traffic controllers in two cities unable to take rest periods. No specific instances detailed in Wellington where air traffic controller unable to reasonably off load work and unable to take rest break during day shift. Respondent’s obligation to provide rest breaks separate matter to respondent’s compliance with Civil Aviation Authority requirements and applicant unable to rely on respondent’s external agreement with Civil Aviation Authority. Suitability of air traffic controller in different sector to provide “listening watch” over Wellington sector separate to issue of whether work could be reasonably off-loaded. Arguable air traffic controller in Wellington unable to fully discharge work when air traffic controller in different sector maintained “listening watch” but approach unduly technical and no evidence air traffic controller unable to take rest break as consequence. No tangible evidence air traffic controller unable to reasonably off load work and could not take rest periods during night time solo shift. No breach of CEA. Application dismissed. |
| Result | Question answered in favour of respondent ; Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Cases Cited | Silver Fern Farms Ltd v New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trade Unions Inc [2010] ERNZ 317;Vector Gas Ltd v Bay of Plenty Energy Ltd [2010] 2 NZLR 444 |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Wellington_158.pdf [pdf 253 KB] |