| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 66/06 |
| Determination date | 10 May 2006 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | T Wilton ; G Jones |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | NZ Amalgamated Engineering Printing & Manufacturing Union v Bridgestone New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE - Whether respondent able to transfer members of applicant from day shift to rotating shift without their consent - Respondent had been unable to fill vacancies on rotating shift so elected to reassign some workers from day shift - Letters signed by two applicants acknowledging hours of work may be subject to change were overridden by Collective Employment Agreement (CEA") - CEA contained clause setting out "principles and commitments" - Respondent argued not just aid to interpretation but imposed substantive obligation on parties - Words in clause general in nature - Meaning respondent sought to adduce from words specific in its effects - If parties had intended consequence respondent sought they would have made specific provision in agreement - Respondent argued agreement allowed more drastic changes to be visited on workers pursuant to another clause in CEA and that it would be an "absurd result" if less drastic changes were not permitted - Authority not persuaded by this argument as clause they sought to draw comfort from plainly did not apply to circumstances of case - CEA allowed variation subject to Union ratification - Union's ratification process did not apply to altering shift pattern of particular workers - Authority accepted applicant's submission that if parties intended that respondent could effectively transfer between shifts with impunity it would have been specifically provided for and that respondent's interpretation made rest of clause superfluous - Respondent referred to principles that employee cannot expect duties to remain unchanged during whole employment relationship and employers right to manage business - Legal precept could not be relied upon to add to provisions of CEA where agreement was silent on particular point - Authority not persuaded agreement allowed respondent to transfer workers from one shift to another without their consent - Clause in dispute intended to allow transfers from one shift to other in circumstances where existing worker absent for whatever reason rather than replacement of worker who had left employment - No clear provision in agreement which contemplated transfer on open ended or permanent basis where workers required to replace other workers who had left job - Question answered in favour of applicant" |
| Result | Question answered in favour of applicant ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | Sanson v Auckland Regional Council [1999] 1 ERNZ 708 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 66_06.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |