| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2018] NZERA Wellington 30 |
| Hearing date | 27-Apr-18 |
| Determination date | 30 April 2018 |
| Member | M Loftus |
| Representation | T Kennedy ; A Caisley |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | New Zealand Tramways and Public Passenger Transport Employees Union v Cityline (NZ) Ltd and Anor |
| Other Parties | Wellington City Transport Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Parties disputed appropriate approach to address redundancies of operators which would flow from implementation of new Regional Council contracts – Applicant sought redundancies to be addressed on a company wide basis by first seeking volunteers for redundancy then assign remainder of jobs based on seniority – Respondents believed those currently employed at Cityline and Wellington City Transport should be reconfirmed in roles before allocating positions to staff at other affected depots to fill remaining positions at Cityline and Wellington City Transport |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;Question as to whether operators job depot or company based. Applicant argued for a company wide approach to redundancy due to the content of rostering provisions contained in Collective Employment Agreements (“CEA’s”). Authority found evidence indicated operator’s position is domiciled at a specific depot and working from another is an abnormal situation. An operator’s roster will only change where a operator requests a different roster. Clause 11 of CEA favours respondents approach. Operator position is depot based. Question as to whether rosters should be reallocated prior to redundancy. No evidence to suggest rostering process to be used as a redundancy selection process. Roster allocation is not a precursor to redundancy selection. Question as to whether Cityline operators can perform what had previously been Wellington City Transport schedule. Geographical prohibition on Cityline operators is historical non-sense. No contractual prohibition on Cityline employees working within boundaries of wellington city. Questions in favour of respondent. |
| Result | Questions answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s129 |
| Cases Cited | Toll New Zealand Consolidated Ltd v Rail & Maritime Union of New Zealand Inc [2004] 1 ERNZ 392 (EmpC) |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2018_NZERA_Wellington_30.pdf [pdf 104 KB] |