| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 22/05 |
| Hearing date | 18 Nov 2004 |
| Determination date | 26 January 2005 |
| Member | K Raureti |
| Representation | T Gallagher ; D Alderslade, P White |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Mist v Waikato District Health Board |
| Summary | DISPUTE - Interpretation of collective agreement - Applicant representative of 15-20 other staff covered by collective agreement - Whether kitchen assistants working on night belt" entitled to extra leave for working shifts - Shift work defined in CA as same work performed by two or more employees or two or more successive sets or groups of employees working successive periods - To qualify for additional leave shift work had to extend over at least 13 continuous hours - "Day belt" workers started at 6.30am and finished at 3pm, night belt workers started at 4.15pm and finished at 8.30pm - Inclined to view that night belt work was "shift work" but unnecessary to determine question - "Continuous" defined in dictionary as unbroken, uninterrupted in time, connected throughout in space and time - Meaning of "continuous" characterised by continuity - Work performed by day belt workers and night belt workers broken by 1ï¾½ hours - Night belt workers not entitled to extra leave for shift workers - Question answered in favour of respondent - Kitchen assistant" |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Question answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | ASTE Te Hau Takitini o Aotearoa v Hampton, Chief Executive of the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic [2002] 1 ERNZ 491;Chief Executive of the Inland Revenue Department v Parkes [2003] 1 ERNZ 540 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 22_05.pdf [pdf 22 KB] |